WILDLAND LTD AND THE WELBECK ESTATES AGAINST SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2017] ScotCS CSOH_113 (30 August 2017)

WILDLAND LTD AND THE WELBECK ESTATES AGAINST SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2017] ScotCS CSOH_113 (30 August 2017)

Scottish Ministers provided adequate and intelligible reasons for their decision by referencing and preferring the detailed appraisal of the Highland Council over SNH's brief advice, and by explicitly acknowledging and balancing the conflict with wild land policy against the benefits of the development. The Ministers' planning judgment was exercised within their discretion, and there was no error of law in the reasoning or process.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_113
Parties
Petitioners: Wildland Ltd and The Welbeck Estates; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Petition / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Consent, Renewable Energy, Wild Land Protection, Statutory Consultation, Adequacy of Reasons
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Planning Consent Renewable Energy Wild Land Protection Statutory Consultation +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wildland Ltd and The Welbeck Estates

Petitioners

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Petition / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Scottish Ministers gave proper, adequate and intelligible reasons for rejecting statutory advice from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) on landscape and visual impact.
  2. 2 Whether Scottish Ministers properly applied strengthened wild land protection policy under SPP 2014 and gave sufficient reasons for departing from SNH's objection.
  3. 3 Whether the decision was inconsistent with previous refusals for wind farms on wild land and if such consistency is a material consideration.

Ratio Decidendi

Scottish Ministers provided adequate and intelligible reasons for their decision by referencing and preferring the detailed appraisal of the Highland Council over SNH's brief advice, and by explicitly acknowledging and balancing the conflict with wild land policy against the benefits of the development. The Ministers' planning judgment was exercised within their discretion, and there was no error of law in the reasoning or process.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Respondents' pleas in law sustained
  • Petitioners' pleas in law repelled