Baird & Anor v Langmuir & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_157 (04 June 2008)

Baird & Anor v Langmuir & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_157 (04 June 2008)

The planning authority identified and applied the relevant policies, exercised its planning judgment appropriately, and addressed the objections raised. There was no failure to consider material considerations, no ultra vires action, and the decision was not unreasonable or perverse. The court should not interfere with the authority's discretion in the absence of clear error.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_157
Parties
Petitioners: Andrew Baird and Mrs. Susan Baird; Petitioners: Montgomery Brady Langmuir and Mrs. Zoe Anne Langmuir; Respondents: East Renfrewshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Ultra Vires, Material Considerations, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Ultra Vires Material Considerations Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Baird and Mrs. Susan Baird

Petitioners

Montgomery Brady Langmuir and Mrs. Zoe Anne Langmuir

Petitioners

East Renfrewshire Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority acted ultra vires in granting planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the planning authority ignored material considerations
  3. 3 Whether the decision was unreasonable, irrational or perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The planning authority identified and applied the relevant policies, exercised its planning judgment appropriately, and addressed the objections raised. There was no failure to consider material considerations, no ultra vires action, and the decision was not unreasonable or perverse. The court should not interfere with the authority's discretion in the absence of clear error.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • First and second pleas-in-law for the respondents sustained
  • Orders sought in the petition refused