GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD, APPEAL BY AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS AND GLASGOW AND THE CLYDE VALLEY STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AUTHORITY [2018] ScotCS CSIH_17 (20 March 2018)

GLADMAN DEVELOPMENTS LTD, APPEAL BY AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS AND GLASGOW AND THE CLYDE VALLEY STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AUTHORITY [2018] ScotCS CSIH_17 (20 March 2018)

The court held that while the reporter acknowledged the absence of compelling evidence for the HSTs as required by SPP, he provided an adequate and reasonable explanation for proceeding in its absence, relying on professional judgment and the overall compliance of the Clydeplan with the policy objective of providing a generous housing land supply. The approval of the Clydeplan was not ultra vires or unlawful, and the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_17
Parties
Appellant: Gladman Developments Ltd; Respondent: The Scottish Ministers; Interested Party: Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Strategic Development Plan, Housing Land Requirement, Scottish Planning Policy, Judicial Review, Evidential Basis in Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Strategic Development Plan Housing Land Requirement Scottish Planning Policy Judicial Review Evidential Basis in Planning Decisions

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Ltd

Appellant

The Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Housing Supply Targets (HSTs) in the Clydeplan were supported by compelling evidence as required by Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)
  2. 2 Whether the reporter and Scottish Ministers provided adequate reasoning for proceeding in the absence of such evidence
  3. 3 Whether the approval of the Clydeplan was ultra vires or involved a material error of law

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the reporter acknowledged the absence of compelling evidence for the HSTs as required by SPP, he provided an adequate and reasonable explanation for proceeding in its absence, relying on professional judgment and the overall compliance of the Clydeplan with the policy objective of providing a generous housing land supply. The approval of the Clydeplan was not ultra vires or unlawful, and the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

appeal refused