Calmac Developments Ltd v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2015] ScotCS CSOH_129 (18 September 2015)

Calmac Developments Ltd v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2015] ScotCS CSOH_129 (18 September 2015)

The only representation made by the appellant concerned the placement of the Dumfries settlement boundary. Adequate reasons were given for rejecting this representation. No request was made to classify Newbridge or Woodlands as a village, so respondents were not obliged to provide reasons or act on classification. The appeal fails as the respondents' decision-making process was legally adequate.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_129
Parties
Appellant: Calmac Developments Limited; Respondent: Dumfries and Galloway Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Development Plan, Settlement Boundary, Housing Policy, Adequacy of Reasons
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Development Plan Settlement Boundary Housing Policy Adequacy of Reasons

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calmac Developments Limited

Appellant

Dumfries and Galloway Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents provided adequate reasons for rejecting appellant's representations regarding the settlement boundary and classification of Newbridge as a village
  2. 2 Whether respondents were obliged to classify Newbridge/Woodlands as a village absent specific representations

Ratio Decidendi

The only representation made by the appellant concerned the placement of the Dumfries settlement boundary. Adequate reasons were given for rejecting this representation. No request was made to classify Newbridge or Woodlands as a village, so respondents were not obliged to provide reasons or act on classification. The appeal fails as the respondents' decision-making process was legally adequate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • first, second and third pleas-in-law for respondents upheld
  • question of expenses reserved