Royal Society for the Protection of Birds v The Scottish Ministers & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSIH_31 (16 May 2017)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds v The Scottish Ministers & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSIH_31 (16 May 2017)

The court held that the Scottish Ministers had complied with all relevant statutory procedures, including consultation and public participation, and had properly considered the scientific evidence and advice available at the time. The Ministers were entitled to prefer the methodologies and conclusions of their own scientific advisers over those of the petitioners. There was no procedural unfairness or error of law in the decision-making process, and the Ministers had provided adequate reasons for their decisions. The challenge to the treatment of draft SPAs was rejected, as draft sites do not have the same legal status as designated SPAs. Accordingly, the consents granted for the wind...

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_31
Parties
Petitioners and Respondents: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Respondents and Reclaimers: The Scottish Ministers; Interested Party and Reclaimer: Inch Cape Offshore Ltd; Interested Party and Reclaimer: Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Ltd; Interested Party and Reclaimer: Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motions (appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Lord Ordinary recalled; petitions for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Habitats Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment, Appropriate Assessment, Special Protection Areas, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Renewable Energy Consents
Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Habitats Directive Environmental Impact Assessment Appropriate Assessment Special Protection Areas Judicial Review of Administrative Action +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Petitioners and Respondents

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents and Reclaimers

Inch Cape Offshore Ltd

Interested Party and Reclaimer

Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Ltd

Interested Party and Reclaimer

Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd

Interested Party and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motions (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Ministers acted in a procedurally correct manner in granting consents for offshore wind farms.
  2. 2 Whether the Ministers took into account material upon which the petitioners ought to have been allowed to comment.
  3. 3 Whether the consents involved errors of scientific fact or methodology susceptible to judicial review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Scottish Ministers had complied with all relevant statutory procedures, including consultation and public participation, and had properly considered the scientific evidence and advice available at the time. The Ministers were entitled to prefer the methodologies and conclusions of their own scientific advisers over those of the petitioners. There was no procedural unfairness or error of law in the decision-making process, and the Ministers had provided adequate reasons for their decisions. The challenge to the treatment of draft SPAs was rejected, as draft sites do not have the same legal status as designated SPAs. Accordingly, the consents granted for the wind...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Lord Ordinary recalled; petitions for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • The reclaiming motions are allowed.
  • The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary is recalled.