Judicial Review of a Decision of the Scottish Ministers dated 6th June, 2014 to grant consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Scottish and Southern Energy Renewables for the erection of 67 wind turbines at Stronelairg, Garrogie Estate, Whitebridge, Fort Augustus together with deemed planning permission under Section 57(2) of the Town … Continue reading The John Muir Trust, Re Judicial Review: SCS 4 Dec 2015
Outer House – The petitioner environmental group objected to the grant under the 1989 Act of permission for the construction for a substantial wind farm in Central Mainland, Shetland. Lady Clark of Calton  ScotCS CSOH – 158 Bailii Electricity Act 1989, Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, Town and Country Planning (Scotland) … Continue reading Sustainable Shetland, Re Judicial Review: SCS 24 Sep 2013
Appeal against a decision of the Scottish Ministers, being the decision of the Reporter appointed by the Scottish Ministers to determine an appeal in terms of section 130(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997  ScotCS CSOH – 132 Bailii Scotland, Planning Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514436
The appellant owned land. Another company owned the mineral rights in the land. There had been no working of the mineral rights since 1982, and the respondent council had registered the planning permission as dormant, meaning that if the land was to be worked again steps would first have to be taken to meet current … Continue reading G Hamilton (Tullochgribban Mains) Ltd v The Highland Council and Another: SC 11 Jul 2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not out of town. The parties disputed whether ‘suitable’ meant suitable to the needs for … Continue reading Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council: SC 21 Mar 2012
(Opinion) The appellants objected to decisions by the respondent planning authority for the allocation of plots of land for residential and other development within the National Park. . .
(First Division, Inner House) ED appealed from the adoption of a supplementary guidance (SG).
Held: The appeal succeeded. The First Division upheld three of the four grounds of appeal advanced. First, the court upheld the submission that the . .
The applicant had had rejected her challenge to the planning policy of the respondens. The court now considered the Council’s motion for expenses. . .
The petitioners soiught to object to the decision of the Ministers to approve a structure plan proposed for the future development of St Andrews.
Held: The request was refused. . .
The land was subject to an old mineral planning permission. A plan attached to that permission was now lost, and the permission itself was now classed as dormant. The land-owner feared that in resurrecting the permissions, the authority had . .
The claimant challenged a back to back agreement between the council and a developer where the council agreed to purchase compulsorily a plot of land against a developer’s undertaking to complete the development and indemnify the council against its . .
Judicial Review was sought of a decision of a Reporter determining the Petitioners’ planning appeal, to refuse to sist a planning appeal. The local plan was going to appeal, and the reporter wanted to await the outcome. The court did not find any . .
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review. Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory functions; it is not in any general way subject to statutory … Continue reading The British Broadcasting Corporation v Johns (HM Inspector of Taxes): CA 5 Mar 1964
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
The court considered the power of the Secretary of state to vary or amend an enforcement notice under the Act.
Held: He could amend a notice which was otherwise invalid but not one which was upon its face a nullity. Lord Denning MR said: ‘He . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts