Simpson v Edinburgh Corporation
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1960 |
| Date | 17 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 37. |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Guest.
Heritable Property—Objection by householder to building operations as contrary to development plan—Redevelopment of historic Georgian residential area for modern university buildings—Amenity—Planning permission—Title to sue—Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947 (10 and 11 Geo. VI, cap. 53), sec. 12 (1).
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, enacts by sec. 12 (1):—"Subject to the provisions of this and the next following section, where application is made to the local planning authority for planning permission, that authority may grant permission either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit, or may refuse permission; and in dealing with any such application the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material thereto, and to any other material considerations."
The University of Edinburgh obtained planning permission for the construction of modern university buildings in George Square, Edinburgh, which required the demolition of two sides of the square and the destruction of its characteristic Georgian appearance. The owner of a dwelling-house in George Square objected to the University's proposed building operations, on the ground that the purported planning permission was contrary to the city's development plan and so wasultra vires. He sought declarator to that effect and interdict.
Held by the Lord Ordinary (Guest) that the pursuer had no title to sue; that in any event a local planning authority had power to grant planning permission contrary to a development plan; and action dismissed.
The Reverend Ian Simpson brought an action of declarator and interdict against the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh and the University of Edinburgh.
The circumstances are summarised in the rubric and are fully set forth in the opinion of the Lord Ordinary.
The pursuer pleaded:—"(1) The second defenders not having applied for nor having been granted planning permission in 1955 by the first defenders for the development of the south or east sides of George Square, decree of declarator should be pronounced in terms of the first conclusion of the summons. (2) The second defenders never having applied for nor having been granted planning permission permitting development of the south or east sides of George Square, other than those portions covered by the said pretended grant of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor Dengan Tanggungan
-
Axis Intl v Civil Aviation Auth
...(26) R. (Richards) v. Pembrokeshire County Council, [2005] LGR 105; [2004] EWCA Civ 1000, considered. (27) Simpson v. Edinburgh Corp., 1960 S.C. 313; 1961 S.L.T. 17, followed. (28) Streeter v. Immigration Bd., 1998 CILR 366, applied. (29) Tesco Stores Ltd. v. Environment Secy., [1995] 1 W.L......
- McEvoy v Meath County Council
-
Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others; Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others
...[2021] IEHC 683. 38 Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995 reprint). 39 Simpson v Edinburgh Corporation [1961] S.L.T. 17, cited in 40 [2020] IECA 74. 41 Merriman & Friends of the Irish Environment v Fingal County Council [2017] IEHC 695. 42 Cork County Counci......