COLIN LIDDELL AND OTHERS AGAINST ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL [2020] ScotCS CSIH_30 (10 June 2020)

COLIN LIDDELL AND OTHERS AGAINST ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL [2020] ScotCS CSIH_30 (10 June 2020)

The planning officer exercised professional judgment, conducted sufficient investigations, and reasonably concluded that the proposed development would not affect the setting of Ardencaple House. No error of law or defective procedure was demonstrated; the statutory duty under section 59(1) did not arise as the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSIH_30
Parties
Petitioners and Reclaimers: Colin Liddell and Others; Respondent: Argyll and Bute Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (reclaiming Motion/appeal) / Inner House, Court of Session, Post Refusal by Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Statutory Duty Under Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (scotland) Act 1997, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Setting of Listed Buildings
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Protection Listed Buildings Statutory Duty Under Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (scotland) Act 1997 Judicial Review Planning Permission Setting of Listed Buildings

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Liddell and Others

Petitioners and Reclaimers

Argyll and Bute Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (reclaiming Motion/appeal) / Inner House, Court of Session, Post Refusal by Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority failed to consider the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting as required by section 59(1) of the 1997 Act
  2. 2 Whether the planning officer's failure to visit Ardencaple House constituted a fatal flaw in the decision-making process
  3. 3 Whether the planning officer's report and reasoning were Wednesbury unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The planning officer exercised professional judgment, conducted sufficient investigations, and reasonably concluded that the proposed development would not affect the setting of Ardencaple House. No error of law or defective procedure was demonstrated; the statutory duty under section 59(1) did not arise as the threshold was not crossed.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; petition dismissed.

Orders

  • Court adheres to the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 31 July 2019 refusing the petition.