Lardner v Renfrew District Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 17. |
| Date | 13 February 1997 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - First Division) |
FIRST DIVISION.
Town and country planning—Practice—Appeal—Planning permission—Appellant failing to make timeous representation to planning authority and subsequently to reporter at public local inquiry—Correct procedures followed by planning authority and reporter in respect of representations—No explanation for appellant's failure to object prior to all procedures having been carried out—Whether appellant “person aggrieved”—Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (cap 52), sec 232(1)1
A planning authority adopted a local plan which recommended development of private housing at a particular site in the locality. A draft local plan had been prepared and the statutory procedures regarding advertisement, the making of adequate arrangements for members of the public to inspect the draft plan, the giving of adequate time for representations to be made, the consideration of such objections, the giving of notice of a public inquiry and the holding of a public inquiry by a reporter at which objections were heard, were effected. The appellant failed to object during that procedure but nevertheless appealed under sec 232 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to have the plan quashed on the grounds that it was ultra vires and in any event not in conformity with the requirements of part II of the Act. The planning authority objected to the competency of the appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant had no title to sue as not being a person aggrieved in terms of the Act.
Held (1) that although the appellant was not a person whose own property was directly affected by the adoption of the local plan, as someone who lived near the site and used it he was not a mere busybody and, had he lodged an objection to the plan and appeared at the inquiry, he might have fallen into the category of an aggrieved person if he could have averred a genuine grievance of the kind contemplated by this section, but the difficulty for him was that he did not object at the proper time and did not take part in the public inquiry at which issues relating to the draft plan were explored; and (2) that there was a difference between feeling aggrieved and being aggrieved for the latter expression involved some external basis for feeling upset which constituted some denial of or affront to his expectations or rights; the particular circumstances of any case required to be considered and the question had always to be whether the appellant could properly be said to be aggrieved by what had happened; (3) that in deciding that question it would usually be a relevant factor that through no fault of the planning authority, the appellant had failed to state his objection at the appropriate stage of procedure laid down by Parliament since that procedure was designed to allow objections and problems to be aired and a decision then to be reached by the planning
authority but the nature of the grounds on which the appellant claimed to be aggrieved might also be relevant; (4) that the matters raised by the appellant all related to matters which he could have put or endeavoured to put to the planning authority or to the reporter at the inquiry and had he done so his objections could have been considered at the due time; so that (5) as the appellant now sought to have those issues re-opened after the decision had been taken in accordance with the prescribed procedure; and having regard both to the nature of his interests in the site and to his failure to take the necessary steps to state those objections at the due time, the appellant could not properly be regarded as a person aggrieved in terms of sec 232; and appealrefused.Philip Lardner appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session against the decision of the reporter appointed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v Scottish Ministers
...will vary according to the context in which it is found. It is therefore necessary, as Lord President Rodger observed in Lardner v Renfrew District Council 1997 SC 104, 108, to have regard to the particular legislation involved, and the nature of the grounds on which the appellant claims to......
-
Zurich Assurance Ltd v Winchester City Council and Another
...of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA Civ 600, at [53]. 83 As the Lord President (Lord Rodger) explained in Lardner v Renfrew DC, 1997 SC 104 (Inner House), at 108: "The particular circumstances of any case require to be considered and the question must always be wheth......
-
Macaulay v Morrison
...[1990] 1 All ER 243; 154 JP 145; 88 LGR 408; 2 Admin LR 115; [1989] RVR 215; [1990] COD 120; 154 JPN 73 Lardner v Renfrew District Council 1997 SC 104; 1997 SLT 1027; 1997 SCLR 454 Nicol (D & J) v Dundee Harbour Trs 1915 SC (HL) 7; 1914 2 SLT 418; [1915] AC 550 North East Fife District Coun......
-
Opinion Of The Inner House Of The Court Of Session In The Special Case Stated By The Scottish Land Court At The Request Of John Macaulay Against Mrs Mary Ann Morrison And Mark Tayburn
...Lord Reed at para. 84, under reference to Arsenal Football Club Ltd v Ende, Smith[1979] AC 1 at 32 and Lardner v Renfrewshire Council 1997 SC 104 at 108. [34] The importance of context when interpreting legislation impacts on how useful it will ever be to seek to interpret an expression in ......