Cases - City of Edinburgh v Secretary of State for Scotland

Record details

Name
City of Edinburgh v Secretary of State for Scotland
Date
(1998); [1997]
Citation
1 AII ER 174; 3 PLR 71
Legislation
Keywords
Planning control
Summary

Lord Clyde, delivering the judgment of the House, said:

'... if the application accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations indicating that it should be refused, permission should be granted. If the application does not accord with the development plan it will be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted. One example of such a case may be where a particular policy in the plan can be seen to be outdated and superseded by more recent guidance. Thus the priority given to the development plan is not a mere mechanical preference for it. There remains a valuable element of flexibility. If there are material considerations indicating that it should not be followed then a decision contrary to its provisions can properly be given ...'

Lord Clyde also observed that the assessment of facts and the weighing of the considerations is still in the hands of the decision maker.

'As Glidewell LJ observed in Loup v Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) "What section 54A does not do is to tell the decision maker what weight to accord either to the development plan or to other material considerations". Those matters are left to the decision maker to determine in the light of the whole material before him both in the factual circumstances and in any guidance in policy which is relevant to the particular issues.'

Lord Clyde also said:

'[The decision maker] will also have to consider whether the development proposed in the application before him does or does not accord with the development plan. There may be some points in the plan which support the proposal but there may be some considerations pointing in the opposite direction. He will be required to assess all of these and then decide whether in light of the whole plan the proposal does or does not accord with it.'