Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, a resident of The City, opposed aspects of a statutory development plan prepared by Entity A (the planning authority) and ultimately approved, with modifications, by Entity B (the national ministers responsible for planning). The Appellant consistently objected throughout three consultation stages: (1) the drafting of the plan by Entity A, (2) submission of the finalised plan to Entity B, and (3) publication of Entity B’s proposed modifications.
After Entity B approved the plan in May 2009, the Appellant applied to the Court of Session under section 238(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, alleging non-compliance with statutory requirements to give reasons. Both the Outer House and Inner House rejected the challenge. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, where the present judgment was delivered.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Entity B’s statement of reasons, issued under section 10(10) of the 1997 Act, adequately addressed the Appellant’s objections—particularly those concerning the landscape capacity of The City.
- Whether any inadequacy in those reasons substantially prejudiced the Appellant’s interests so as to justify quashing the plan under section 238(2) of the 1997 Act.
- (Ancillary) Whether the Inner House erred in awarding expenses against the Appellant, having regard to the Aarhus Convention and the availability of protective expenses orders.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Entity B mischaracterised her objection by summarising it as asserting that The City was already “at its landscape capacity,” whereas her true point was that the limited capacity identified in the Person A landscape report could not accommodate the scale of development proposed (housing, science park and business park).
- By relying on the Person A report merely to assert that “some scope” existed, Entity B failed to grapple with the substance of her objection, thereby breaching the statutory duty to provide “such statement as [they] consider appropriate of the reasons.”
- This failure created substantial doubt as to whether Entity B had properly considered the environmental impact, causing her substantial prejudice within the meaning of section 238(2).
- The Inner House should not have imposed a costs order because the potential liability was prohibitive and she had not been asked to disclose capital or invited to seek a protective expenses order.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153 |
Reasons must dispel substantial doubt that the decision-maker misunderstood or failed to consider material matters. |
Cited by the Appellant; the Court held no such doubt arose on the facts. |
| Edwin H Bradley & Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982) 47 P & CR 374 |
Adopts the In re Poyser test—reasons must be proper, adequate and intelligible. |
Used by the Court to frame the standard for adequacy of reasons. |
| In re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 |
Formulates the “proper, adequate and intelligible” test for reasons. |
Formed the core benchmark applied by the Court. |
| Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661 |
Endorses the Poyser standard in planning contexts. |
Cited with approval to confirm the applicable test. |
| R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex p Eastaway [2000] 1 WLR 2222 |
Explains that a final appellate court should focus on issues of general public importance. |
Referenced in the judgment’s postscript on appellate practice. |
| McArthur v Lord Advocate 2006 SLT 170 |
Provides guidance on seeking a protective expenses order in environmental litigation. |
Relied on by the Inner House when considering expenses. |
| Wilson v Jaymarke Estates Ltd 2007 SC (HL) 135 |
Warns against abusing the unrestricted Scottish right of appeal. |
Cited in the postscript emphasising counsel’s responsibility. |
| G Hamilton (Tullochgribban Mains) Ltd v Highland Council [2012] UKSC 31 |
Illustrates previous instances where Scottish appeals lacked issues of general importance. |
Referenced as a comparator in the postscript. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Scope of the duty to give reasons. The Court reviewed the statutory framework, noting that Entity A must justify policies in the plan, whereas Entity B’s duty under section 10(10) is to explain its own decision to approve or reject, not to re-justify every policy choice.
2. Context and audience. Because the objectors were well-informed and the plan contained an existing justification, Entity B could lawfully provide concise, thematic responses rather than line-by-line replies.
3. Grouping of objections. Given more than 2,700 objections, the Court accepted Entity B’s method of categorising and summarising objections by topic and plan chapter as proportionate and reasonable.
4. Specific treatment of landscape capacity. The contested “Reason 33” acknowledged that the Person A study showed “some scope for further development” west of The City. While this did not examine numerical capacity in detail, other reasons collectively made clear that unresolved landscape issues were to be addressed at the local-plan stage.
5. Adequacy under the Poyser standard. Reading the reasons together with the strategic environmental assessment, a “well-informed reader” would understand why Entity B was unpersuaded by the Appellant’s landscape objections. The reasons were therefore proper, adequate and intelligible.
6. Absence of prejudice. Even if fuller reasoning could have been given, nothing suggested that Entity B overlooked the landscape impact; hence no substantial prejudice arose under section 238(2).
7. Expenses. On costs, the Inner House acted within its discretion: the Appellant had not applied for a protective expenses order despite clear guidance in McArthur, and had not provided complete financial information. Those factors justified the award of expenses.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the structure plan and affirmed the Inner House’s expenses award. While the plan itself has since been superseded, the decision clarifies that concise, categorised reasoning can satisfy section 10(10) where objectors are knowledgeable and detailed justification exists elsewhere. The judgment sets no new substantive precedent but offers guidance on proportionality in statutory reasoning requirements.