Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 183 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2013] UKSC 21
Court: Supreme Court

Lord Hope DP, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, and Lord Carloway SCJJ

Representation James Findlay QC and Stephen O'Rourke (instructed by Patrick Campbell and Company) for the appellant.
  Ruth Crawford QC and Alistair Duncan QC (instructed by the Scottish Government Legal Directorate) for the Scottish Ministers.
  Douglas Armstrong QC and Robert Sutherland (instructed by Balfour and Manson LLP) for the authority.
Judgment Dates: 24 April 2013


Town and country planning - District plan - Planning purpose - Economic regeneration - Fife and St Andrews - Planning authority intending to prepare replacement of structure plan - Authority submitting finalised plan to Scottish Ministers for approval - Ministers publishing proposed modifications to finalised plan - Appellant submitting objections - Ministers approving finalised plan with modifications - Ministers giving reasons for decision - Appellant challenging validity of structure plan on ground Ministers failing to give adequate reasons - Objections being rejected by Lord Ordinary and reclaiming motion refused by Inner House - Appellant appealing - Whether Inner House erring.

The Case

Town and country planning District plan. The Supreme Court, determining an appeal from the Inner House, Court of Session, held that the appellant's objections to the validity of a structure plan submitted by the planing authority responsible for Fife and, in particular St Andrews, had been adequately considered by the first respondent Scottish Ministers, and the Ministers had given adequate reasons for rejecting the objections.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.