What can we help you with today?
J29 (Scotland) Limited v Scottish Ministers
J29 (Scotland) Limited v Scottish Ministers
XA49/24
Tuesday 6 May 2025
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First Division
Overview
[1] This statutory appeal under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 relates to a site in Paisley. J29, the appellant, seek to erect a multi-use development. The proposed development comprises residential units, pub and restaurant facilities, business facilities, industrial facilities, storage and distribution facilities, and a long stay car parking to be utilised by those travelling to and from Glasgow Airport.
[2] Planning permission in principle (18/0638/PP) for the development was granted on 19 March 2019. This is permission granted subject to prescribed conditions. To proceed with the development, J29 require approval of matters specified in conditions, known as an AMSC application.
[3] J29 made an AMSC application (22/0569/PP) on 10 August 2022 relating to the residential unit development only. They seek to build 180 dwelling houses for the residential phase of the development. In the application they addressed conditions 2, 4, and 6 of the permission in principle. Condition 2 required J29 to make an application in writing in respect of specified matters. Specifically, that access and parking arrangements, including the provision of any new roads and junctions are to be addressed in the AMSC application. Condition 4 required that the detailed written application should include a full drainage impact assessment. Condition 6 required a noise assessment to be submitted prior to commencement of the work.
[4] This AMSC application was refused on 21 March 2024 by Renfrewshire Council on the basis that: (i) the development would have a negative impact on the existing educational infrastructure (St Andrew's Academy and St Fergus Primary School) and no mitigatory measures had been provided by J29; and (ii) the development failed to provide suitable integration and connectivity with the surrounding area as it relied on a single access point from Ferguslie Park Avenue.
[5] In April 2024, J29 appealed this decision, but by the decision of the Reporter dated 14 August 2024, this appeal was unsuccessful and was dismissed.
The Reporters’ Decision
[6] The Reporter considered the conditions contained within the permission in principle and considered that the main issues in the appeal were: the road infrastructure and connectivity; the developer contributions; design; drainage and flooding; and noise.
[7] The Reporter noted that approved plans pertaining to the planning permission in principle comprised of a ‘Masterplan Site Area’ which indicates the boundaries, and an ‘Indicative Masterplan’ which served to break the overall site into areas for specific uses.
[8] The areas identified for the roads infrastructure on the Indicative Masterplan are discrete from the areas identified for the approved uses. This related to a proposed road linking Ferguslie Park Avenue with West March Road, providing a link from north to south of the development. He considered that the reconfigured road network was a key feature of the Indicative Masterplan, and that the route of the road was intentionally excluded from the residential housing allocation to ensure that the strategic link could be realised. Any future AMSC applications would have been expected to honour the boundaries and locations of each approved use.
[9] The Indicative Masterplan, in the Report of Handling for the planning permission was considered to demonstrate “the intention to create an attractive and wellconnected development to facilitate movement which can be delivered through subsequent Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions applications or full planning applications.”
[10] The plan included in the AMSC application did not include the same plan for the reconfiguration of the road network. There was no linking road from West March Road to Ferguslie Park Avenue as proposed in the Indicative Masterplan. The proposed plan also encroached on an area that was earmarked for industrial usage under the Indicative Masterplan.
[11] The Reporter considered that any proposal to develop an element of land awarded planning permission in principle must efficiently demonstrate that it would not compromise the future delivery of the wider development area. The Reporter did not consider that the proposal considered the wider development. It only focused on one discrete area. The proposal would prevent the strategic approach which was approved in the Masterplan, allowing for connectivity with the surrounding area which was part of the reasoning for granting the permission in principle for the development. The alternative connectivity routes would require to proceed through the residential areas, which he did not consider was the desired development plan when he considered the Handling Report relating to the planning permission in principle.
[12] The Reporter did not consider that there was merit in the argument pertaining to education. He considered that the council was fully aware of the site and that the Education Service had ample opportunity to take the allocation of land into account in school role projections.
[13] No decision was reached regarding design, flooding and drainage as the Reporter felt that this was premature. Conditions 4 and 6 (which relate to these matters) are predicated on the agreement of the scheme under Condition 2, which is not yet satisfied.
The Statutory Appeal
[14] J29 appeal on three grounds. First, that the Reporter failed to properly assess whether the AMSC application fell within the boundaries of the planning permission in principle. Second, that the Reporter did not provide adequate reasoning in (i) explaining the aspects of the AMSC application that fell outwith the boundaries of the planning permission in principle (ii) finding conditions 2 and 3 of the planning permission in principle support the requirement for a through road to West March Road, and (iii) explaining to what extent the AMSC application fails to comply with key policies. Third, J29 contend that the Reporter’s reasoning was inconsistent throughout his decision.
[15] The Respondent, the Scottish Ministers, contend that there was no conclusion that the AMSC application fell outwith the boundaries of the planning permission in principle, as the Reporter did not conclude that the planning permission in principle required a through road or linkage to West March Road. On the second ground of appeal, the Scottish Ministers contend that the Reporter’s reasoning was not contradictory nor irrational. He exercised his planning judgement. Finally, they contend that the Reporter provided adequate reasoning within his decision.
The First Division will hear the appeal on 6 May 2025 at 10.30am.