Summary of Court Opinion (Anonymized)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a decision by the respondents' Development Management Review Committee ("DMRC") on 25 October 2024 to grant planning permission for a crematorium on agricultural land located near [Number] Main Street, close to but outside the boundary of The City and within The State. The planning application was submitted by Company A on 14 December 2020. A planning officer, acting under delegated authority, refused permission on 24 January 2022 for reasons relating to accessibility and unsustainable travel. Company A sought review by the DMRC. The DMRC first granted permission on 29 June 2023, but that decision was reduced by this court following agreement between the parties because the decision notice did not accurately reflect the real reasons for the grant; the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by a differently constituted DMRC. The second DMRC review resulted in a decision notice dated 25 October 2024 granting planning permission subject to conditions. The Appellant, a close neighbour of the site, challenged the second decision by appeal to this court under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the DMRC correctly interpreted and applied the relevant development plan policies (including National Planning Framework 4 and the Angus Local Development Plan 2016) when deciding that the proposed crematorium accorded with the development plan.
2. Whether the DMRC gave adequate and intelligible reasons for departing from the delegated officer's recommendation and for concluding that material considerations justified the grant of permission.
3. Whether the DMRC's conclusions on travel generation, road safety and the adequacy of transport mitigation measures were irrational or otherwise unlawful.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The DMRC failed properly to consider conformity with the development plan and did not provide adequate analysis or reasons explaining why the proposal complied with the plan.
• The decision departed without proper justification from the delegated officer's conclusion; no clear reasons were given for that departure, rendering the decision irrational.
• The sequential assessment of alternatives (including brownfield and sites within The City) was inadequate; the DMRC did not explain which alternative sites had been considered and why they were unsuitable.
• The claimed material considerations (demand and cost of cremation, approvals elsewhere) were not valid planning reasons to depart from the development plan.
• The DMRC's conclusions on traffic generation and road safety were irrational in light of competing transport evidence; recommended conditions and prospective speed limit changes were insufficient safeguards.

Respondent's Arguments

• The DMRC correctly interpreted the development plan and made lawful planning judgments about the weight to be attached to competing policies; those are matters for the decision-maker and not for this court to substitute its own view.
• The DMRC was entitled to differ from the delegated officer, drawing on members' experience and the independent planning advisor, and provided adequate reasons for its conclusions.
• Relevant material considerations (including lack of crematorium-specific policy, local demand and prior decisions) could properly be taken into account; the DMRC was entitled to treat late evidence from a competitor as having limited weight or being out of time.
• The DMRC had adequate transport evidence, undertook a site visit, obtained updated traffic information and imposed appropriate conditions; its conclusions on travel generation and road safety were rational.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by restating the legal principles governing interpretation and application of the development plan: interpretation is a matter of law, and planning authorities must correctly understand the plan before exercising judgment (relying on the authorities summarized in the Table above). The court emphasised the distinction between legal interpretation of policies and the exercise of planning judgment in applying potentially competing policies.

The court reviewed the second DMRC decision notice in its entirety and determined that the DMRC had:

• Identified the relevant national and local policies (NPF4 and the ALDP 2016) and expressly assessed the proposal against each pertinent policy;
• Had regard to the changed statutory development plan following adoption of NPF4 and to a statement prepared for the DMRC explaining NPF4's emphasis on climate and nature considerations;
• Given significant weight to sustainability and accessibility policies but also taken into account other policies (notably on rural development, community facilities and employment) which pointed in a different direction;
• Considered the applicants' sequential assessment and the absence, on the material before it, of any identified more suitable sites in The City or within settlements in The State;
• Considered transport evidence including an updated transport assessment and advice from the roads service and an independent planning advisor, and imposed conditions (including travel plan measures) to mitigate impacts;
• Taken a holistic view, balancing competing policy aims in a manner consistent with the DMRC's role to weigh and apply planning policies using judgement and experience.

The court expressly addressed the contention that the development was a "significant travel generating use" under NPF4 policy 13(d). It observed that whether a development is such a use involves questions of fact and degree and planning judgment. The court noted the applicants' traffic assessment, the independent planning advisor's view that it was not a significant travel-generating use, the roads service's apparent agreement, and the particular characteristics of the rural area (where top modes of sustainable travel may be unfeasible). The court concluded that it was not irrational for the DMRC to find compliance with policy 13(d), particularly given factors the DMRC relied on: anticipated reduction in travel distances for mourners, reasonable prospects of car sharing, and the requirement for a travel plan with measures to encourage sustainable travel.

On other contested matters the court found:

• The DMRC was entitled to treat the absence of crematorium-specific policies as a relevant consideration and to give weight to local demand and community benefits.
• The DMRC was entitled, in its procedural discretion, to treat a late submission from Company B as coming too late and to attribute it limited weight.
• The evidence before the DMRC supported the conclusion that the local road network could accommodate the development and that road safety issues could be addressed by conditions; apprehension about the making of a future speed limit order did not invalidate the decision because the DMRC's intention and conditional approach were clear.
• The DMRC's reasons, read as a whole, were adequate and intelligible to an informed reader and met the standard of reasoning required of review bodies.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The court dismissed the appeal and refused the challenge to the DMRC's decision. The court concluded that the DMRC correctly interpreted the development plan, lawfully exercised planning judgment in balancing competing policies, and provided adequate and intelligible reasons for its decision to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the DMRC's grant of planning permission (25 October 2024) stands and the Appellant's appeal is refused.
• The court emphasized the distinction between legal interpretation of planning policy (for the court) and planning judgment (for decision-makers). Where the decision-maker properly interprets policy and reaches a rational planning judgment, the court will not intervene.
• The decision does not purport to establish any novel precedent beyond reaffirming established principles on interpretation versus judgment and the standard for sufficiency of reasons in planning decisions.

Document notes: This summary is strictly confined to the content of the provided opinion and has been fully anonymized in accordance with the anonymization rules supplied. Names of individuals and entities in the original text have been replaced with generic placeholders; references to statutory instruments and policy documents are preserved only where they appeared in the opinion.