Atlast Investments Ltd, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 86 (10 April 2001)

Atlast Investments Ltd, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 86 (10 April 2001)

The Development Sub-Committee was sufficiently apprised of Atlas's ongoing interest and the existence of its planning permission. The report before the Sub-Committee accurately and comprehensively described the relevant circumstances. There was no extant Council determination to proceed with comprehensive...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 86
Parties
Petitioner: Atlas Investments Limited; First Respondent: Glasgow City Council; Second Respondent: Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited (Standard) / Bass plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Compulsory Purchase Orders, Material Considerations in Planning, Ultra Vires Actions by Local Authorities
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Compulsory Purchase Orders Material Considerations in Planning Ultra Vires Actions by Local Authorities

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atlas Investments Limited

Petitioner

Glasgow City Council

First Respondent

Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited (Standard) / Bass plc

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Development Sub-Committee failed to take into account a material consideration regarding Atlas's ongoing redevelopment proposal and the Council's position on compulsory purchase powers.
  2. 2 Whether the grant of planning permission and conservation area consent to Standard was irrational or unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Development Sub-Committee was sufficiently apprised of Atlas's ongoing interest and the existence of its planning permission. The report before the Sub-Committee accurately and comprehensively described the relevant circumstances. There was no extant Council determination to proceed with comprehensive redevelopment involving compulsory purchase at the time of the decision. The Sub-Committee did not fail to consider a material consideration, nor was its decision irrational or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Sustained the Council's first plea-in-law and dismissed the petition.
  • Granted Standard's motion for dismissal.