The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had been obtained and incorporated in the plan. She had objected that St Andrews had reached te limit of its proper development without damage to the landscape. The Ministers replied that they had considered the objection, but that the report had indicated otherwise.
Held: The appeal failed. The ministers task at this stage was concerned with policy and general proposals. The objections raised related to matters dealt with at earlier stages of development of the plan. There being no identified flaw in the approval, the appeal must fail.
Judges:
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Carloway
Citations:
[2013] UKSC 21, UKSC 2012/0034
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
At Outer House – Uprichard v Order of The Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jul-2010
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. . .
Appeal from – Uprichard v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 7-Sep-2011
The applicant sought a reclaiming motion against the local council’s Structure plan.
Held: The request was refused. Lord Justice Clerk Gill said: ‘A structure plan is that part of the statutory development plan that sets out the overall . .
See Also – Fife Council v Uprichard SCS 10-Nov-2011
The applicant had had rejected her challenge to the planning policy of the respondens. The court now considered the Council’s motion for expenses. . .
Cited – Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd HL 28-Feb-1991
An order allowing demolition of a listed building was possible even though the building itself remained viable. The function of the courts was to validate the decision making process, not the merits of the decision.
Lord Bridge analysed the . .
Cited – Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration 1963
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must . .
Cited – Edwin H Bradley and Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment 1982
Reasons given for a decision may be brief, whilst still following Poyser. The fact that a procedure is not in the nature of a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing between parties may mean that the requirement to give a party full opportunity to . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
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? . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.472944