What can we help you with today?
Allied Vehicles Limited v The Scottish Ministers & another
Case: XA70/25
Tuesday, 23 June 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
This is an archive of a livestream. Find out about restrictions on livestreaming.
Allied Vehicles Limited v The Scottish Ministers & another
XA70/25
Tuesday 23 June 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First division
[1] Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has a statutory duty to compile lists of buildings which are of “special architectural or historic interest”. Under its statutory powers, HES may approve or reject proposals for inclusion in the lists from third parties. Planning authorities have a separate statutory power to serve a “building preservation notice” (BPN) when an unlisted building is threatened by alteration or demolition. The planning authority may use this power if they think that the building is of special interest and, once served, the notice gives the same protection as listed building status for up to six months. During that period, HES must decide whether or not to list the building. If, following service of a BPN , HES decides not to list the building, the planning authority may not serve another BPN within 12 months of that decision.
[2] The appellant owns a disused former cinema in the Possilpark area of Glasgow. The building was opened in 1933 and was designed by architect James McKissack. The appellant wishes to develop the building into a vehicle showroom and flats. A building warrant for the demolition of the building was granted in December 2023.
[3] HES declined a third-party proposal to list the building on 12 January 2024. It found that the building met the criteria for listing on account of its historic and architectural significance, but development proposals were at such an advanced stage that the building ought not to be listed.
[4] On 15 January 2024, the local authority served a BPN. Following a further assessment on 18 January 2024, HES intimated its decision to list the building on 3 June 2024.
[5] On appeal to the Scottish Ministers, the Reporter found that the building was of special architectural and historic importance. There was no impediment to the service of a BPN following HES’s initial decision not to list the building since the prohibition on the service of BPNs within 12 months of a listing decision only applied following service of a prior BPN. In the present case, the initial decision was taken following a third-party proposal. There were, in effect, two statutory schemes, each with different policy guidance. The guidance was ambiguous, there was a lack of reasoning within HES’s decision notice and there was a lack of transparency. The timing of the decision also fell to be criticised. Nevertheless, those criticisms did not make the building any less worthy of listing. Development had ceased since service of the BPN and there was reasonable justification for HES to have taken the decision it did.
[6] The appellant argues that the Reporter erred in law in finding that there was no impediment to service of a BPN. The Reporter acted irrationally by dismissing the appeal where there was no intelligible reason or justification for the change in outcome between the first and second decision of HES. Service of a BPN was not a material change in circumstances which could justify the change in position. Moreover, the decision was an unlawful interference with the appellant’s rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
[7] The respondent maintains that the Reporter was correct to find that there was no impediment to service of a BPN. The Reporter fully engaged with the issues advanced by the appellant and arrived at a decision he was entitled to reach. The reasons in support of his decision were proper, adequate and intelligible. There was no unlawful interference with the appellant’s property rights.
[8] The First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session will hear the appeal on Tuesday 23 June 2026 at 10:30.