Dixon v Angus Council: Significant Travel‑Generating Uses, Rural Crematoria and the Application of NPF4

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Paul Dixon v Angus Council [2025] CSIH 29, an appeal under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The case arises from Angus Council’s Development Management Review Committee (“DMRC”) granting planning permission for a new crematorium on agricultural land near Duntrune House, Angus. The appellant, Mr Paul Dixon, a close neighbour and objector, challenged that decision.

The judgment is of particular importance as an early and authoritative Inner House application of National Planning Framework 4 (“NPF4”), especially:

• The meaning and application of NPF4 policy 13 on “significant travel generating uses” in a rural context.
• The relationship between NPF4’s climate and sustainable transport policies (policies 1, 2, 9 and 13) and its rural development policy (policy 29).
• The treatment of social and economic need, cost of service, and the absence of topic-specific policies (here, for crematoria) as material considerations.
• The standard of reasons required from a local review body following the earlier quashing of a previous DMRC decision on this very proposal.

The appeal was refused. The court upheld the DMRC’s decision that, properly understood against the development plan (NPF4 and the Angus Local Development Plan 2016 (“ALDP”)), the crematorium accorded with the development plan and that its reasoning was lawful and adequately explained.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 The proposal

Duntrune Ltd applied on 14 December 2020 for planning permission for a crematorium on a 1.98‑hectare agricultural site north of the C4 public road, approximately 300 metres east of Duntrune House and about 1 km from the Dundee City Council boundary. The proposal comprised:

• A crematorium building on the western portion of the site.
• 124 car parking spaces (72 standard, 52 overflow), including 7 disabled bays.
• An internal one-way circulatory road; area at overflow parking for coach waiting.

Supporting documents included a planning design and access statement and a transportation assessment. The assessment concluded the crematorium would principally serve Angus, with some Dundee custom due to proximity. Objectors commissioned an independent transport assessment raising concerns about traffic increases.

2.2 Officer’s handling report and delegated refusal

At the time of the officer’s report (20 January 2021), the development plan comprised:

• TAYplan Strategic Development Plan; and
• Angus Local Development Plan 2016 (“ALDP”).

Key points from the officer’s report included:

• Public transport in the area was infrequent; accessibility by sustainable modes was poor.
• Traffic generation would result in circa 27% and 20.3% increases during the morning and evening peaks respectively, but the local road network could accommodate the additional traffic.
• The site was outwith a principal settlement, contrary to policies favouring development in more accessible locations.
• The applicant’s sequential site assessment was regarded as insufficient: it did not consider Dundee sites or out-of-centre sites on established public transport corridors.
• The proposal was found to promote an unsustainable pattern of travel, increasing reliance on private car use, contrary to Scottish Planning Policy, TAYplan and ALDP policies DS1, DS2, DS3 and TC8.

On 24 January 2022, the delegated officer refused permission on two main grounds:

1. Unsustainable travel and accessibility: increased reliance on private cars, poor walking/cycling/public transport, contrary to TAYplan policies 1 and 2, ALDP policies DS2, DS3, TC8 and Scottish Planning Policy.
2. Inappropriateness of location: under ALDP policy DS1, the scale and nature of the development were not appropriate given the site’s poor accessibility and conflict with other relevant policies.

2.3 The first DMRC review and its quashing

Duntrune Ltd sought review by the DMRC. On 29 June 2023, the first DMRC granted planning permission. Mr Dixon appealed to the Court of Session.

The parties agreed that the decision notice was unlawful because:

• It appeared to grant permission despite conflict with the development plan;
• Whereas the Council’s true position was that the proposal was thought to comply with the plan;
• There was thus a “clear and fundamental divergence” between the reasons given and the real reasons, which were absent.

By agreement, the Court reduced (set aside) the first DMRC decision and remitted the review to a differently constituted DMRC.

2.4 The second DMRC review

By the time of the second review:

• National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) had been adopted (13 February 2023) and now formed part of the statutory development plan.
• TAYplan and Scottish Planning Policy (2014) no longer formed part of the development plan.
• The development plan for Angus comprised NPF4 and the ALDP 2016.

The second DMRC:

• Had before it the original handling report and a specific officer statement on NPF4.
• Was assisted by an independent planning adviser.
• Undertook an unaccompanied site visit on 1 July 2024.
• Requested and received an updated traffic survey (Transport Assessment Addendum, July 2024).

The NPF4 statement emphasised:

• NPF4’s strong focus on the climate and nature crises.
• The need to reduce car kilometres by 20% and favour sustainable modes.
• A compact urban growth strategy and preference for brownfield over greenfield.
• The view that the crematorium’s location was inconsistent with these overarching objectives, especially sustainable transport and greenfield avoidance, and conflicted with NPF4 policies 1, 2, 13, 14 and 29.

The applicant’s further submissions argued:

• The crematorium was not a “significant travel generating” use under NPF4 policy 13.
• In a rural area, some greater reliance on private vehicles is inevitable.
• The proposal would in fact reduce overall travel for rural residents who currently travel further to other crematoria.
• The DMRC’s adviser and the roads authority did not consider it to be a significant travel generator.

The updated transport assessment and the roads service email (29 July 2024) concluded that:

• Any traffic impact would be negligible.
• Traffic volumes had increased since 2019, thereby reducing the percentage development impact.
• Local roads would continue to operate within capacity; speed reductions observed were minor and did not require further mitigation.

2.5 The second DMRC decision

The second DMRC’s key conclusions (decision notice 25 October 2024) included:

• Sensitive setting: Crematoria require a “sensitive and peaceful setting”; such uses are unlikely to be located in town centres or edge-of-centre locations.
• Policy context: There were no NPF4 or ALDP policies specific to crematoria; this and the essential nature of the facility were material considerations.
• Rural reality: Angus is predominantly rural and generally poorly served by public transport; this influenced the realistic application of sustainable transport policies.
• Traffic: With signage and mitigation, local roads were adequate; funeral traffic would generally be off-peak; roads officers raised no objection; the use was “not a significant travel generating” one.
• NPF4 policies 1 & 2: A “wider view of compliance” was adopted, noting that greenfield rural development is not prohibited, that travel to more distant crematoria would be reduced, and that sustainable design features were proposed.
• NPF4 policy 13: Not contravened because the proposal was not a significant travel-generating use, did not involve “everyday travel”, and would reduce travel times and CO₂ emissions overall.
• NPF4 policy 29 and ALDP TC8/TC15: The project would contribute to the rural economy and provide an essential community facility, suitably scaled and sited for its rural context.
• ALDP DS1, DS2, DS3, TC8, TC15: The development was of appropriate scale and nature for the countryside; no appropriate brownfield or settlement sites were available; there would be no unacceptable landscape or environmental harm.

Additional planning conditions were imposed, including:

• Widening of the C4 carriageway.
• Installation of a new bus stop at the site entrance.
• Promotion of a speed limit order.

3. Issues on Appeal

3.1 Appellant’s main grounds

The appellant’s submissions can be grouped under four broad headings:

1. Misapplication of the development plan:
   • Failure to engage properly with whether the development accorded with NPF4 and the ALDP.
   • Lack of proper interpretation and analysis of individual policies, especially on accessibility and sustainability.
2. Unreasoned departure from officer advice:
   • The DMRC did not adequately explain why it rejected the planning officer’s conclusion of non‑compliance.
3. Error regarding alternative sites and material considerations:
   • Insufficient explanation of why brownfield or settlement sites were unavailable or unsuitable.
   • Reliance on immaterial considerations: cost and demand for cremations; supposed “precedents” from other rural crematorium decisions.
   • Failure properly to consider evidence from Parkgrove Crematorium showing spare capacity.
4. Irrational conclusions on traffic and travel generation:
   • Disregard of objectors’ transport evidence suggesting a 38.7% traffic increase.
   • No rational basis for assuming funeral traffic would be off‑peak.
   • Inadequate conditions regarding road safety and speed limits.

3.2 Respondents’ submissions

Angus Council’s position was broadly:

• The DMRC had correctly identified and interpreted the relevant policies in NPF4 and ALDP.
• The appellant’s complaints went to matters of weight and planning judgement, which are for the decision‑maker, not the court, unless irrational.
• The DMRC was entitled to differ from officer recommendations and to rely on its own experience, particularly about rural transport realities and funeral travel patterns.
• The absence of crematoria‑specific policies, the essential nature of the facility, the cost and demand for cremation, and consistency with other permissions were all proper material considerations.
• The letter from Parkgrove was late, came from a competitor, and was reasonably given little or no weight.
• Traffic and road safety issues had been thoroughly examined via surveys, consultation with the roads authority, and the site visit; conditions adequately mitigated any residual risks.
• The reasons given were adequate and intelligible when the decision is read as a whole.

4. Summary of the Court’s Judgment

The Inner House dismissed the appeal. Its core conclusions can be summarised as follows:

• Correct understanding of the development plan: The DMRC correctly understood the relevant policies in both NPF4 and the ALDP and applied them lawfully (para [52]).
• Holistic reading and balancing of policies: When read fairly and as a whole, the DMRC’s decision showed that it had weighed competing policies – particularly climate, sustainable transport and rural development/community facility policies – and had exercised planning judgement in balancing them (paras [53]–[58]).
• NPF4 policy 13 and “significant travel generating uses”: Whether the crematorium was a “significant travel generating use” is a matter of fact, degree and planning judgement. It was not irrational to conclude that it was not such a use in the rural Angus context, and thus that policy 13(d) was not contravened (para [56]).
• NPF4 policy 29 and rural development: The DMRC was entitled to give significant weight to policy 29 (rural economic activity and essential community facilities), as well as ALDP TC8 and TC15, and to find the proposal compliant with them (para [58]).
• Brownfield/settlement sequential approach: The DMRC was entitled to accept that there were no suitable brownfield or settlement sites for the development within Angus, particularly as no alternative sites were clearly identified by officers or objectors (para [55]).
• Material considerations: The absence of crematoria‑specific policies, and issues of demand, viability and cost, were all legitimate considerations. The Parkgrove letter was reasonably treated as late and of limited weight (paras [59]–[60]).
• Traffic and roads: The DMRC’s conclusions that traffic volumes could be safely accommodated and that conditions (including a proposed speed limit reduction and bus stop) were adequate were rational and supported by evidence (para [61]).
• Reasons: Applying the standard in West Lothian Council v Scottish Ministers and NLEI v Scottish Ministers, the DMRC’s reasons were adequate and intelligible (para [61]). The decision was lawful.

5. Precedents and Authorities Cited

5.1 Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; 2012 SC (UKSC) 278

The court relies heavily on Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council to restate two fundamental points (para [50]):

1. Correct understanding of the development plan is a question of law. A planning authority must correctly understand the meaning of the relevant development plan policies. Misinterpretation is a legal error.
2. Application of policy is a matter of judgement. While interpretation is for the court, deciding how a policy applies to a particular proposal is within the decision-maker’s planning judgement, challengeable only if irrational or perverse.

The court quotes Lord Reed’s well‑known observation that development plans contain broad, sometimes competing policy statements and that authorities “do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty” – they cannot make policies mean whatever they wish (para [51]).

5.2 City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland 1998 SC (HL) 33

This leading House of Lords authority is cited (para [51]) to reiterate the statutory structure:

• Section 37(2) of the 1997 Act requires decision‑makers to have regard to the development plan.
• Section 25(1) requires decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The judgment emphasises that because of this statutory primacy, correct interpretation of the development plan is a legal requirement.

5.3 Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37; [2017] 1 WLR 1865

Hopkins Homes is cited (para [51]) to reinforce the distinction between:

• Issues of interpretation of policy (appropriate for judicial determination), and
• Issues of judgement in the application of policy (for the planning decision‑maker, subject only to Wednesbury irrationality review).

The Dixon decision follows that orthodox approach, resisting attempts to recast matters of judgment (e.g. how “significant” travel generation is assessed) as errors of law.

5.4 NLEI v Scottish Ministers [2022] CSIH 39 and West Lothian Council v Scottish Ministers [2023] CSIH 3; 2023 SLT 175

These cases are used (para [61]) to restate the standard for the adequacy of reasons in planning decisions:

• Decisions should be “intelligible yet succinct”.
• The decision-maker must identify live issues and leave the reader in no real doubt as to:
  • What the reasons for the decision were; and
  • What considerations were taken into account.
• Decision-makers (reporters or review bodies) are not expected to provide lawyerly treatises; clarity for a non‑specialist audience is key.

The Inner House applies this standard to the DMRC decision notice and finds that it satisfies the test.

6. Legal Reasoning and Application

6.1 Statutory framework and standard of review

The appeal proceeds under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The court is not a re‑hearing or a merits appeal; its role is to determine whether the decision is unlawful, for example by:

• Misinterpreting the development plan;
• Taking into account irrelevant considerations or ignoring relevant ones;
• Reaching a conclusion that no reasonable decision-maker could reach; or
• Failing to give adequate reasons.

Section 25(1) is central: decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The court’s principal task was to see whether the DMRC:

• Properly identified the components of the development plan (NPF4 and ALDP);
• Correctly understood relevant policies; and
• Reasonably applied them in its planning judgement.

6.2 Interpreting and applying NPF4 and ALDP policies

6.2.1 Overall approach: holistic reading and policy balance

The court stresses (para [53]) that:

• A decision notice must be read as a whole, avoiding legalistic dissection of individual sentences.
• Planning policies often “pull in different directions”; one cannot assume that apparent tension between policies equates to illegality.
• The DMRC’s essential task was to weigh those conflicting objectives and exercise its planning judgement.

The appellant’s arguments were criticised for focusing on non-compliance with individual policies without considering how they might be reconciled with others, notably the tension between:

• NPF4’s climate, transport and compact growth policies (policies 1, 2, 9, 13); and
• Rural development and essential community facility policies (policy 29, ALDP TC8 and TC15).

6.2.2 Brownfield preference and settlement focus: NPF4 policy 9 and ALDP DS1

NPF4 policy 9 favours reuse of brownfield land; ALDP DS1 similarly prefers development within settlements and brownfield first. The appellant argued that the DMRC had not shown:

• Which brownfield or settlement sites were assessed; or
• Why those were unsuitable;
• And that it was implausible that no such site within Angus could accommodate a crematorium.

The court held (para [55]):

• The applicants had carried out a sequential assessment indicating no suitable brownfield or settlement sites in Angus.
• While the officer report criticised the assessment for not looking at Dundee, no concrete alternative site within Dundee (or elsewhere) was identified by officers or objectors.
• The applicants’ stated objective was to serve the Angus community; locating the facility in Dundee could undermine that purpose.

In those circumstances, the DMRC was entitled, as a matter of judgement, to conclude that policy 9 and DS1 were complied with. There was no legal requirement to identify every site considered or to expand the search into another authority’s area where the development’s purpose was locally focused.

6.2.3 Climate and sustainable transport: NPF4 policies 1, 2 and 13

NPF4 policy 1 gives “significant weight” to the global climate and nature crises, and policy 2 requires proposals to be sited and designed to minimise greenhouse gas emissions across their lifecycle.

Policy 13(d) provides that proposals for significant travel generating uses will not be supported in locations that would increase reliance on the private car, taking into account the area’s specific characteristics.

Key points in the court’s reasoning (para [56]) include:

• “Significant travel generating use” is a matter of fact, degree and judgement.
  This is not a purely quantitative or legalistic concept; the decision-maker must evaluate:
  • The nature of the use (here, infrequent, non‑everyday trips for funerals);
  • Expected trip numbers and patterns (3 services per day, 5 days a week, average 70 attendees in 24 cars);
  • The existing travel baseline (rural mourners already travelling substantial distances to other crematoria); and
  • The specific characteristics of the area (here, rural Angus).
• Rural context is built into NPF4.
  The court refers to NPF4 Annex F’s definition of “sustainable travel”, which recognises that in some rural locations, where walking, cycling and public transport are not feasible, low‑emissions vehicles and shared transport will play an important role.
• DMRC’s conclusion was not irrational.
  Given:
  • The modest number of services and trips;
  • The independent planning adviser’s view and lack of contrary advice from the roads service;
  • Recognition that this is not “everyday” travel;
  • Evidence that the facility would reduce total travel distances by bringing cremation services closer to rural communities; and
  • Conditions requiring a Travel Plan and a new bus stop;
  it was within the DMRC’s planning judgement to conclude that:
  • The use was not a “significant travel generating use” in the sense targeted by policy 13(d); and
  • Policy 13(d) was therefore not breached.

The court emphasises that these factors also influence the weight given to sustainability and accessibility policies: they do not disappear, but are judged in the rural context rather than an urban ideal.

6.2.4 Rural development and essential community facilities: NPF4 policy 29 and ALDP TC8/TC15

NPF4 policy 29 supports rural economic activity, innovation and diversification, including essential community facilities. It requires that such developments:

• Be suitably scaled, sited and designed to accord with rural character; and
• Consider transport needs “as appropriate for the rural location”, echoing Annex F’s acknowledgment of car‑dependence in some rural contexts.

ALDP TC8 (Community Facilities and Services) and TC15 (Employment Development) cover similar ground.

The court holds (para [58]) that the DMRC was entitled to:

• Treat the crematorium as an essential community facility and a contributor to the local rural economy.
• Find that its design, scale and siting were appropriate for the rural setting.
• Conclude that transport considerations were acceptable, having regard to the rural context and mitigations (road improvements, Travel Plan, bus stop, etc.).
• Give these policies significant weight in the overall balance.

This is important: the court explicitly recognises that rural development and essential facilities policies can legitimately “pull in a different direction” from strict climate/transport policies, and that reconciling them is a matter for the planning judgement of the authority.

6.3 Material considerations

6.3.1 Absence of crematoria-specific policies

The appellant criticised the DMRC for regarding the lack of crematoria‑specific policies as a material consideration. The court rejects this (para [59]):

• It was lawful for the DMRC to note that neither NPF4 nor the ALDP had policies tailored to crematoria.
• That absence was a relevant background factor when applying more general policies on community facilities, rural development and transport.

6.3.2 Cost, demand and viability of cremation services

The appellant claimed that the cost and demand for cremations were irrelevant. The court disagrees (para [59]):

• The need for and viability of a crematorium at this location were live issues raised by objectors.
• Those matters are classically recognised as material planning considerations.
• While the bare cost of cremation might not, in isolation, be a planning matter, it was relevant as an indicator of need, affordability and viability in the local context.

Thus, the DMRC acted within its powers in attaching weight to:

• Unmet local demand;
• Potential for reduced costs or improved access; and
• Socio‑economic benefits to the Angus community.

6.3.3 Parkgrove Crematorium’s spare capacity

Parkgrove Crematorium’s director submitted a late letter asserting spare capacity. The appellant argued the DMRC wrongly ignored this. The court holds (para [60]):

• Determining whether to accept late submissions is largely a procedural, case-management judgement for the DMRC.
• The letter arrived on 4 September 2024, after the DMRC had already indicated (on 22 August) that it was minded to approve subject to conditions; the time for representations had passed.
• Parkgrove lies over 18 miles away; its catchment likely differs, so its capacity is only of limited relevance.
• As a competitor, Parkgrove’s commercial interest justified treating its evidence with caution.

The DMRC was therefore entitled to give the Parkgrove letter no (or little) weight without committing an error of law.

6.4 Traffic, road safety and conditions

The appellant challenged the DMRC’s acceptance of traffic impacts as irrational, pointing to objectors’ evidence of a 38.7% traffic increase. The court notes (para [61]):

• The DMRC had before it:
  • Original and updated traffic surveys;
  • Professional transport assessments (for both applicants and objectors);
  • Detailed advice from the Council’s roads service; and
  • First-hand impressions from a site visit.
• The roads service considered the additional traffic impact to be slight and well within the network’s capacity, with no need for further conditions beyond those already proposed.
• Reductions in traffic speeds were negligible; they did not require additional mitigation.

On the specific point that the speed limit order was not guaranteed, the court states there was “no substance” in this objection:

• The condition’s clear intention was that a speed limit order would be made.
• There was no objective basis to assume it would be refused.

These were issues of professional and local judgement on traffic risk. The court was not persuaded that the DMRC’s approach was irrational.

6.5 Adequacy of reasons

The earlier DMRC decision had been quashed by consent precisely because its reasons did not accurately reflect the basis for the decision. Unsurprisingly, the adequacy of the second decision’s reasoning was central.

Applying the West Lothian standard (para [61]), the court emphasised that:

• The DMRC identified:
  • The determining issues (development plan compliance and other material considerations);
  • The relevant NPF4 and ALDP policies; and
  • Its reasons for concluding that each major policy was, or was not, complied with.
• The decision notice:
  • Explained why the use was considered appropriate for a rural setting;
  • Set out the committee’s understanding of rural transport realities and why the development was not treated as a significant travel generator;
  • Addressed landscape, amenity and biodiversity issues and how conditions could mitigate impacts; and
  • Described the economic and community benefits which justified giving substantial weight to policy 29 and ALDP community facility policies.

The court concluded that an informed reader would understand:

• Why the DMRC departed from the officer recommendation;
• How it reconciled the climate/transport policies with rural development and community facility policies; and
• The basis on which the appellant’s main objections (traffic, accessibility, alternative sites, need) had been resolved.

The reasons were therefore adequate and intelligible, and the appeal failed on this ground as well.

7. Simplifying the Key Legal Concepts

7.1 “Development plan” and its primacy

The “development plan” is the core set of planning policies against which planning applications are judged. At the time of the DMRC decision, it comprised:

• National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), and
• Angus Local Development Plan 2016 (ALDP).

By law (section 25 of the 1997 Act), decisions must be made “in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. The plan is not just background guidance; it is the starting point and has legal primacy.

7.2 Material considerations

“Material considerations” are any relevant factors (beyond the development plan) that may influence the decision, such as:

• Site-specific issues (traffic, design, ecology, amenity).
• Socio‑economic impacts (jobs, local services, community benefits).
• Evidence of need and viability for the proposed use.
• National policy statements or guidance not formally part of the plan (though here, NPF4 is part of the plan).

In this case, material considerations included:

• The lack of crematoria‑specific policies.
• Evidence of need for cremation facilities in Angus.
• Cost and accessibility of cremation services.
• Consistency with previous decisions on similar rural developments.

7.3 “Significant travel generating use”

NPF4 policy 13 aims to restrict developments which would generate large volumes of traffic in unsustainable, car‑dependent locations. A “significant travel generating use” might typically include major retail centres, large offices, major leisure complexes or large‑scale housing.

Whether a given development falls into this category depends on:

• The level of trips it will generate;
• The frequency and timing of those trips;
• Whether the trips add to existing travel demand or replace it; and
• The characteristics of the area (urban vs rural, existing infrastructure, availability of public transport).

The court confirms that for a rural crematorium, with modest daily service numbers and where journeys are already being made to more distant crematoria, it was a matter of judgement (not law) whether it is “significant” in the sense used by NPF4.

7.4 “Sustainable travel” in rural areas

While national policy emphasises walking, cycling and public transport, NPF4 explicitly recognises that in some rural locations these are not realistic for most journeys. In those contexts, “sustainable travel” can include:

• Car‑sharing and shared transport schemes.
• Low-emission or electric vehicles.
• Improved bus links where feasible (here, a new bus stop and a Travel Plan).

The court confirms that when applying NPF4 transport policies in rural areas, decision-makers can legitimately acknowledge greater reliance on private vehicles, provided the impacts are mitigated and balanced against other policies (like rural community facilities).

7.5 Reasons and decision notices

Planning decision-makers must give reasons that:

• Identify the key issues and policies;
• Explain, in broad terms, why the decision was reached; and
• Allow an informed reader to understand how major objections were resolved.

They do not have to:

• Address every minor point in detail;
• Compose a legal treatise referencing every case; or
• Follow journal‑style structure or language.

The decision is judged on substance, not style. In this case, the DMRC’s second decision met that standard, in contrast to the first, which was quashed.

8. Impact and Future Significance

8.1 Implications for rural community facilities under NPF4

This judgment is likely to be cited in future as a key authority on how NPF4’s climate and transport policies should be applied to rural community facilities such as:

• Crematoria;
• Rural health centres and clinics;
• Schools and community halls serving wide rural catchments;
• Other essential social infrastructure in car‑reliant rural areas.

It confirms that:

• Rural development and community facility policies (like NPF4 policy 29) may legitimately temper the strict application of transport and compact urban growth policies, provided the decision-maker recognises and balances the tensions.
• Decision-makers can accept a degree of car dependence in rural contexts while still lawfully concluding that a proposal complies with NPF4, especially when:
  • Trips are infrequent and not “everyday travel”;
  • The proposal reduces overall travel distances compared with existing arrangements;
  • Mitigation measures (Travel Plans, bus stops, road improvements) are secured.

8.2 Early interpretation of NPF4 policy 13 and Annex F

As one of the first Inner House decisions to grapple directly with NPF4 policy 13 and Annex F, Dixon sets a benchmark for:

• Understanding “significant travel generating uses” as a flexible, judgment‑based concept rather than a rigid numerical threshold.
• Recognising that NPF4’s vision of sustainable travel must be adapted to rural realities, not applied as if every site were urban or suburban.

Future objectors will find it challenging to overturn permissions solely on the basis that a rural facility is car‑dependent, unless they can show a clear misinterpretation of policy or an irrational disregard of substantial evidence.

8.3 Reinforcement of orthodoxy on development plan interpretation and judicial restraint

The judgment firmly re‑states:

• The Tesco/City of Edinburgh/Hopkins Homes orthodoxy: courts decide what policies mean; planning authorities decide how to apply them.
• The high threshold for judicial interference with planning judgement: disagreement on weight or outcome does not suffice.
• The “read as a whole” approach to decision notices, discouraging hyper‑technical parsing of language.

For practitioners, this underlines that challenges under section 239 must focus on clear errors of interpretation or manifest irrationality, not an attempt to re-argue planning merits.

8.4 Practical lessons for planning authorities and review bodies

Authorities can draw several practical lessons:

• Document the policy balance explicitly.
  As the DMRC did, set out:
  • Which policies favour and which oppose the proposal;
  • Why some policies are given greater weight in the particular context;
  • How rural realities or special circumstances (e.g. essential community services) shape the analysis.
• Explain departures from officer recommendations.
  While there is no duty to follow officers, departures should be reasoned, though not exhaustively.
• Handle late evidence consistently and transparently.
  Decide, and record, whether late submissions will be admitted; explain (briefly) why they are or are not taken into account.
• Integrate transport evidence with NPF4 language.
  Explicitly address whether a proposal is a “significant travel generating use” and how Annex F’s rural provisions apply.

9. Conclusion

Dixon v Angus Council [2025] CSIH 29 is a significant addition to Scottish planning jurisprudence for several reasons:

• It provides one of the first Inner House treatments of NPF4’s climate, transport and rural development policies, especially policy 13 on significant travel-generating uses and policy 29 on rural community facilities.
• It confirms that in rural contexts, car dependence does not automatically render a proposal contrary to NPF4; what matters is a fact‑sensitive evaluation of trip generation, existing travel patterns, and realistic alternatives.
• It recognises the absence of sector‑specific policies and the socio‑economic realities of rural service provision (including cost and demand) as legitimate material considerations.
• It reinforces established principles on the interpretation of development plans, judicial restraint in reviewing planning judgements, and the standard of adequacy for planning reasons.

Ultimately, the court upheld the DMRC’s conclusion that the Duntrune crematorium complied with the development plan when read as a whole and in its rural context. The decision underlines that NPF4, while ambitious in its climate and transport aspirations, is not to be applied mechanistically. Instead, planning authorities must continue to exercise nuanced judgement, balancing competing policy aims, particularly where essential community facilities are proposed in car‑dependent rural areas.