Inner House case in which Penny Uprichard challenged a decision of the Scottish Ministers to approve the Fife Structure Plan 2006-2026 with Final Modifications dated May 2009.

The Fife Structure Plan includes provision for a significant expansion of St Andrews with a view to making the town an ‘economic driver’ for Fife. The Council submitted a report containing modifications to the Structure Plan[1] and, after considering the Structure Plan and the Council’s modifications, the Scottish Ministers issued the Finalised Fife Structure Plan incorporating Scottish Government modifications for consultation. Ms Uprichard objected to the modifications to the Structure Plan as they did not reverse the plans for the expansion of St Andrews. However, the Scottish Ministers then approved the Structure Plan as modified and published a document[2] (the May Document) containing the reasons certain modifications had been made and other proposed modifications had not been made. 

Ms Uprichard challenged that approval and concentrated her argument on an objection to the effect that assessments had shown St Andrews to be at its landscape capacity. The reason given for rejection of that objection (in the May Document) was that a study[3] had shown that there was some scope for development to the west of St Andrews. Ms Uprichard argued that that was insufficient reason for rejecting the objection contending that the site to the west of St Andrews was insufficient to accommodate development on the scale envisaged in the Structure Plan. She claimed that it was for the Scottish Ministers to give a reason for proposing development to the west of St Andrews that was beyond the land available.

The Inner House refused Ms Uprichard’s reclaiming motion finding that, although her objection was described as being purely a landscape objection founded on the alleged inadequacy of the landscape capacity of St Andrews for the proposed level of development, it was in fact a root and branch objection to the fundamental aims of the Structure Plan so far as they affect St Andrews. As such it was directed against the strategic land allocation to the west of St Andrews and the identification of St Andrews as an economic driver for Fife.

The court found that there was a wealth of material entitling the Scottish Ministers to conclude that St Andrews West should be one of the strategic land allocations that were a key element in the Structure Plan. The question of landscape capacity was taken into account but did not outweigh other wider considerations that were inherent in the adoption of the overall Structure Plan strategy.

The reasoned justification that Fife Council had offered for its policy for the growth of St Andrews as an ‘economic driver’ for Fife had been constant throughout the Structure Plan. Reading the May Document in its entirety, the Scottish Ministers had given due consideration to both that justification and to the objections of Ms Uprichard and had decided in favour of the justification. Their acceptance of the Council’s justification was a clear and adequate answer to Ms Uprichard’s objection.

The Lord Justice Clerk (Gill) also made the following comments:

“In a case where the adequacy of reasons is challenged, the court should consider whether the informed reader would understand the basis for the decision complained of. The reasons must be intelligible and must deal with the substantive points that have been raised; but in my opinion it is important to begin by considering the nature of the decision that is complained against and the context in which it has been made. In a case of this kind it is also important to assess the adequacy of the reasons on the basis that they are addressed to persons who are familiar with the background and the issues.”

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

(See appeal to the Supreme Court here.)

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.