PETITION OF FRIENDS OF LOCH ETIVE AGAINST ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL [2015] ScotCS CSOH_61 (27 May 2015)

PETITION OF FRIENDS OF LOCH ETIVE AGAINST ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL [2015] ScotCS CSOH_61 (27 May 2015)

The removal of all fish farm equipment at Etive 1 and 5 under the section 75 agreement ends the deemed planning permission for those sites; replacement or re-establishment of fish farms would require new planning permission. The council did not unlawfully tie its hands regarding future applications, nor did the section 75 agreement unlawfully interfere with third party rights. The petitioner's pleas are repelled and the petition dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_61
Parties
Petitioner: Friends of Loch Etive; Respondent: Argyll and Bute Council; Interested Party: Dawnfresh Farming Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Section 75 Agreements, Fish Farming, Ultra Vires, Third Party Rights, Environmental Impact
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Section 75 Agreements Fish Farming Ultra Vires Third Party Rights +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Friends of Loch Etive

Petitioner

Argyll and Bute Council

Respondent

Dawnfresh Farming Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 75 agreement lawfully achieved permanent removal of fish farms at Etive 1 and 5
  2. 2 Whether planning permission for Etive 6 was granted on an error of law
  3. 3 Whether the council unlawfully tied its hands regarding future planning applications

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of all fish farm equipment at Etive 1 and 5 under the section 75 agreement ends the deemed planning permission for those sites; replacement or re-establishment of fish farms would require new planning permission. The council did not unlawfully tie its hands regarding future applications, nor did the section 75 agreement unlawfully interfere with third party rights. The petitioner's pleas are repelled and the petition dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioner's pleas in law repelled
  • Respondents' third and fourth pleas in law sustained