Bell & Anor v. East Renfrewshire Council & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_159 (22 November 2005)

Bell & Anor v. East Renfrewshire Council & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_159 (22 November 2005)

Policy T7/3 does not add the M77/GSO junction as an unconditional opportunity for a motorway service area but preserves the option as an alternative to Kingswell; this is not excluded by the structure plan, and ERC acted within reasonable planning judgment. ERC complied with the reporter's recommendations and was not required to give further reasons.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_159
Parties
Applicant: Ashley Bell; First Respondent: East Renfrewshire Council; Second Respondent: George Wimpy UK Limited; Third Respondent: Carvill (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 238 of the Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 / Outer House, Court of Session, Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Local Plan Validity, Structure Plan Conformity, Planning Policy, Motorway Service Area Policy, Statutory Interpretation

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashley Bell

Applicant

East Renfrewshire Council

First Respondent

George Wimpy UK Limited

Second Respondent

Carvill (Scotland) Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 238 of the Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 / Outer House, Court of Session, Final Judgment

  1. 1 Does Policy T7/3 of the local plan conform to the structure plan?
  2. 2 Did East Renfrewshire Council provide adequate reasons for not following the reporter's recommendation?

Ratio Decidendi

Policy T7/3 does not add the M77/GSO junction as an unconditional opportunity for a motorway service area but preserves the option as an alternative to Kingswell; this is not excluded by the structure plan, and ERC acted within reasonable planning judgment. ERC complied with the reporter's recommendations and was not required to give further reasons.

Court Disposition

Application refused