Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Petition of Galloway Without Pylons for Judicial Review (Court of Session)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A sought consent under the Electricity Act 1989, s 37 to install approximately 47km of overhead 132kV power lines in a rural upland area. Company A made five applications on 28 August 2020. Objections led the First Respondent to appoint two reporters and hold a public inquiry. The reporters submitted a report on 7 February 2024 recommending refusal of consents and deemed planning permissions. On 14 February 2025 the First Respondent decided, contrary to the reporters' recommendation, to grant the consents. The Petitioner sought judicial review, principally contending that the First Respondent's decision did not give adequate reasons for departing from the reporters' recommendation. Company A and the First Respondent lodged answers and made submissions. The opinion was delivered by Judge Lake on 10 March 2026.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the First Respondent's decision letter provided adequate reasons explaining why it departed from the reporters' recommendation to refuse consent.
- Whether the First Respondent failed to engage with or take into account material evidence and representations made by the Petitioner at the inquiry.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner
- The decision letter fails to provide proper, adequate and intelligible reasons enabling an informed reader to understand why the First Respondent departed from the reporters' recommendations.
- As a subsidiary ground, the First Respondent failed to engage with evidence and representations made by the Petitioner at the inquiry and may have failed to take into account material considerations.
First Respondent
- It was open to the First Respondent to reject the reporters' recommendation. The decision letter and other parts of the decision explain why the First Respondent attached greater weight to the need for the development.
- The decision records that the report encapsulated the inquiry evidence and it was not necessary to reproduce a line‑by‑line consideration of the Petitioner's evidence.
Company A
- Company A supported the First Respondent's reliance on the reporters' report and contended no line‑by‑line consideration of the Petitioner's evidence was required in the decision letter.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Tesco Stores v Secretary of State for Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759 |
Decision on weight to be accorded to considerations in planning is for the decision‑maker; court intervenes for illegality, irrelevance or Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
The court applied the principle that weighing of considerations is for the First Respondent; this supported the conclusion that differing weight, in itself, is a permissible basis for a contrary decision. |
| R (Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin) |
Referenced in relation to differing views on extent of duty to state reasons when departing from report recommendations. |
The court noted Ling as reflecting a view that more reasons may be required when decision departs from recommendation; used to frame the debate but did not adopt a contrary rule. |
| Uprichard v Scottish Ministers 2013 SC (UKSC) 219 |
What is required by way of reasons depends on the circumstances. |
The court cited Uprichard for the principle that the degree of particularity required in reasons is fact‑sensitive and applied that contextual approach to the decision. |
| Allen v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 767 |
Rule that it is not necessary to give reasons for reasons; and discussion of extent of reasons when departing from recommendations. |
The court relied on Allen to note limitations on demanding "reasons for reasons" while recognising Allen's view that reasons must state why decision‑maker disagrees with recommendations. |
| Horada v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] PTSR 1271 |
Where a decision follows a recommendation little is required; discussion on what must be given when deviating from a report. |
The court used Horada to support the principle that reasons are usually taken from the report if the decision follows it, and to show that a greater explanation may be required where there is departure. |
| R (CPRE Kent) v Dover DC [2018] 1 WLR 108 |
Decisions granting permission against advice or in face of substantial opposition call for more detailed reasons (Lord Carnwath). |
The court expressly adopted Lord Carnwath's view that departures from advice in significant cases call for fuller reasons and applied that test in assessing whether the First Respondent had given sufficient explanation. |
| Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 127 (Admin) |
This precedent was cited in the list of authorities; the specific rule cited was not detailed in the opinion. |
This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
| West Lothian Council v Scottish Ministers 2023 SLT 175 |
This precedent was cited in the list of authorities; the specific rule cited was not detailed in the opinion. |
This information was not available in the provided opinion. |
| South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 |
Reasons must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided and disclose conclusions on principal controversial issues. |
The court relied on South Bucks to state the function of reasons and to assess whether the decision letter met that standard. |
| Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345 |
Decision may be challenged where there has been a failure to take into account all relevant and material considerations. |
The court referenced Wordie for the proposition that failure to take into account relevant considerations can ground challenge and assessed whether any such omission occurred. |
| R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council 2020 PTSR 221 |
Test whether evidence must be considered directly: whether it was so obviously material as to require express consideration. |
The court applied this test and observed the Petitioner did not identify any specific evidence said to have been overlooked; accordingly no breach was found. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Lake set out the controlling legal principles on the duty to give reasons: (a) weighting of planning considerations is for the decision‑maker (Tesco); (b) reasons must enable the reader to understand conclusions on principal controversial issues, with the degree of particularity depending on context (South Bucks; Uprichard); (c) little is required where the decision follows a report (Horada); and (d) more detailed reasons may be required where a decision departs from a report, especially in significant or precedent‑relevant cases (CPRE Kent; Allen; Ling).
The Judge examined the First Respondent's decision, focusing on paragraphs 128–133 which explain that the reporters gave significant weight to adverse environmental effects and reduced the weight to be given to need because they considered Company A had not explored less harmful alternatives; the First Respondent concluded the alternatives had been robustly considered and therefore attached greater weight to the need for the development. The Judge analysed earlier passages in the decision (paragraphs 26, 63–64, 112–113) where the First Respondent recorded Company A's consideration of alternatives, mitigation and the reasoning for attaching significant weight to long‑term environmental benefits of expanded grid capacity.
The court held that simply stating a different balancing conclusion without explanation would be insufficient, but that where the decision as a whole, read together, explains why a different weight was given (including findings that reasonable alternatives had been considered and the public interest in grid upgrade), no substantial doubt remains about the reasoning. On the subsidiary point, the Petitioner failed to identify any specific evidence that was overlooked; the difference between reporters and First Respondent arose in weighting rather than in disputed factual findings, so there was no demonstrated failure to take into account material considerations.
Holding and Implications
REFUSED
Holding: The petition for judicial review was refused. The court sustained the First Respondent's plea‑in‑law and Company A's fourth plea‑in‑law and declined to grant the remedies sought by the Petitioner.
Implications: The First Respondent's grant of consent stands. The court concluded the decision, read as a whole, provided sufficient reasons for departing from the reporters' recommendation; no new legal precedent was established beyond application of existing authorities on the adequacy of reasons and the allocation of weight in planning decisions.
Click here to read the full judgment