APPEAL BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS AGAINST SCOTLAND'S RURAL COLLEGE (SRUC) AGAINST A DECISION OF THE LANDS TRIBUNAL

Factual and Procedural Background

Over many years, planners and road engineers sought to relieve traffic congestion in and around The City by devising a scheme with the aims of promoting economic development in the northeast area and ensuring sufficient housing for an expected population increase. The principal element of the scheme was the "Western Peripheral Route" ("the bypass"), a 46km dual carriageway with improved junctions, which opened in 2019.

One section of the bypass was constructed on land at The Estate to the northwest of The City. The land was acquired by Company A using compulsory purchase powers. Subsequently, The University, the landowner, sought compensation for the loss of land, claiming development value, injurious affection of retained land, and disturbance costs.

Company A refused to pay compensation, arguing that the bypass was essential for development at The Estate, and without it, the land would not have been allocated for housing or received planning permission. They contended that any loss was offset by increased value of the retained land, and paying compensation would amount to betterment.

The University initiated proceedings in the Lands Tribunal, focusing on whether the land would have been allocated for housing absent the bypass. The tribunal held a seven-day hearing involving evidence on planning, transport, economics, and related issues, ultimately finding in favour of The University and ordering a valuation proof.

Company A appealed, seeking to quash the decision and remit the case to the tribunal for reconsideration of certain questions. This appeal is a test case among several pending claims before the tribunal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the tribunal erred in law by failing to properly apply section 110(4) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 regarding compensation assessment.
2. Whether the tribunal made fundamental errors in fact-finding by concluding that, in the no-scheme world, both the retained and acquired land would have been allocated for housing development.
3. Whether the tribunal's decision that the acquired land would have been allocated for housing development was irrational or illogical.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The tribunal failed to discharge its statutory duty under section 110(4) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
• The tribunal made fundamental errors in concluding the land would have been allocated for development absent the bypass.
• The tribunal's conclusion that the acquired land would have been allocated for housing was irrational and illogical.
• Specific contentions included improper consideration of evidence regarding the bypass's objectives, erroneous findings on planning benefits, failure to address planning and transport inter-relationships, overreliance on public inquiry objectives, conflation of scheme purpose with housing allocation scale and location, and misinterpretation of a 2017 planning condition.

Respondent's Arguments

• The grounds of appeal do not identify errors of law but are disagreements with the tribunal's factual findings.
• The tribunal properly applied relevant legal principles and considered the evidence thoroughly.
• The tribunal's interpretation of the 2017 planning condition was correct.
• The tribunal's use of legal guidelines such as the "no scheme" rule and pointers from case law was appropriate and cautious.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed examination of the tribunal's approach and findings. It acknowledged the complexity of the "no scheme" valuation exercise and the necessity of counterfactual analysis to determine what would have occurred absent the bypass. The tribunal's task was to assess whether the land would have been allocated for housing development and whether planning permission would have been granted.

The court found that the tribunal properly exercised discretion in selecting and evaluating relevant documents and evidence, including planning policies, transport considerations, and economic factors. The tribunal's nuanced approach accounted for both supporting and adverse factors to development, such as planning authority preferences, transport constraints, and necessary infrastructure improvements.

Applying established legal principles and the "pointers" from case law, the tribunal avoided disproportionate compensation outcomes. The court rejected the appellant's attempt to recast disagreements with factual findings as errors of law, emphasizing that questions of weight and interpretation are primarily for the tribunal's expertise.

The court concluded the tribunal's reasoning was logical, secure, and consistent with statutory duties under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, including section 110(4). The tribunal correctly interpreted the planning condition restricting development until infrastructure completion.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE APPEAL and adhered to the decision of the Lands Tribunal. All questions of expenses were reserved.

The direct effect is that the tribunal's findings in favour of The University stand, allowing the case to proceed to valuation proof. No new precedent was established, and the decision confirms the deference afforded to tribunal expertise in complex planning and compensation disputes under compulsory purchase legislation.