Unsuccessful challenge to Clydeplan (the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan)Back to News Listing
Gladman Developments Ltd v The Scottish Ministers  CSIH 17
The statutory appeal by Gladman Developments Ltd (a house-building company) against the decision of the Scottish Ministers to approve Clydeplan has been refused by the First Division. The appellant had argued that the Reporter, and the Scottish Ministers, had failed to apply the terms of paragraph 115 of SPP relative to Housing Supply Targets. The appellant sought to quash the whole plan, which failing the chapter on housing.
The First Division restates what has been said before on the subject of planning policy at para . Paragraph 115 of SPP is a “process policy” to be construed in its proper context, namely the provision of new homes in defined situations and the identification of a generous supply of land to support the achievement of the Housing Land Requirement across all tenures by maintaining a 5 year supply (paragraphs 109 and 110 of SPP). While there was a departure from paragraph 115, relative to a lack of “compelling evidence” to support the HSTs, there was no departure from the “policy principle” to provide an adequate housing supply.
The departure from paragraph 115 was adequately explained, and any lack of transparency in arriving at the HSTs was of little weight having regard to the material before the Reporter. The general policy approach in SPP had been followed.
Accordingly, the First Division held that the approval of Clydeplan was not outwith the powers of the TCPSA, or a failure to comply with its provisions. Had the Court reached a contrary view it would have quashed Clydeplan in part only.
Ruth Crawford QC acted for the Scottish Ministers.
Transform Schools (North Lanarkshire) Limited v Balfour Beatty Construction Limited & Anr  CSOH 19
David Whitehouse and Paul Clark v The Chief Constable and The Lord Advocate  CSIH 52
Axiom the “go-to” stable, “boasting an unrivalled bench of experienced commercial advocates”