Site Projects Ltd v Decision of Douglas G Hope [2008] ScotCS CSOH_57 (02 April 2008)

Site Projects Ltd v Decision of Douglas G Hope [2008] ScotCS CSOH_57 (02 April 2008)

The Reporter erred in law by determining the necessity of steps required by the enforcement notice with reference to amenity and public safety, rather than strictly considering what was necessary to restore the land to its condition before the unauthorised display. The error was material and required the decision to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_57
Parties
Appellant: Site Projects Limited; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Reporter's Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Advertisement Control, Deemed Consent, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Enforcement Notice Advertisement Control Deemed Consent Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Site Projects Limited

Appellant

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Reporter's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Reporter erred in law in upholding an enforcement notice requiring removal of advertising hoardings and landscaping scheme
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of regulation 24(3) and 25(1)(d) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984
  3. 3 Extent of deemed consent under regulation 19

Ratio Decidendi

The Reporter erred in law by determining the necessity of steps required by the enforcement notice with reference to amenity and public safety, rather than strictly considering what was necessary to restore the land to its condition before the unauthorised display. The error was material and required the decision to be quashed and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • decision of Reporter quashed
  • case remitted to Reporter for reconsideration