Forbes v Aberdeenshire Council & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSOH_1 (6 January 2010)

Forbes v Aberdeenshire Council & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSOH_1 (6 January 2010)

The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient title and interest to challenge the planning permission for the marram grass works, as she did not object to the application, was not directly affected, and did not participate in the relevant procedures. The planning authority complied with EIA requirements at the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_1
Parties
Petitioner: Mary Buchan Forbes; First Respondent: Aberdeenshire Council; Second Respondent: Trump International Golf Links
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Orders (suspension and Interdict)
Outcome
Petition refused; interim suspension and interim interdict not granted.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Standing (title and Interest), Public Participation in Planning, Aarhus Convention Compliance
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Standing (title and Interest) Public Participation in Planning Aarhus Convention Compliance

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Buchan Forbes

Petitioner

Aberdeenshire Council

First Respondent

Trump International Golf Links

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Orders (suspension and Interdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner has sufficient title and interest to challenge the planning permission for the marram grass works
  2. 2 Whether the planning authority complied with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations and procedures
  3. 3 Whether a pre-determination hearing was required and if the petitioner was entitled to participate

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient title and interest to challenge the planning permission for the marram grass works, as she did not object to the application, was not directly affected, and did not participate in the relevant procedures. The planning authority complied with EIA requirements at the outline stage, and the marram grass works were not a separate EIA development requiring further assessment or screening. No procedural failing was established, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting interim orders.

Court Disposition

Petition refused; interim suspension and interim interdict not granted.