Inner House case considering an appeal by North Lanarkshire Council under s239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.  It concerns a planning application by Shore Energy in respect of a waste management and renewable energy plant at Carnbroe near Coatbridge. The Council refused permission for the plant despite a recommendation by planning officials that the proposal be accepted. However, Shore Energy appealed to the Scottish Ministers against the refusal of planning permission. After an inquiry, reporters appointed by the Scottish Government granted planning permission subject to conditions. The Council then appealed to the court under s239.

The crux of the dispute was the relative weight given to local planning and environmental considerations, on the one hand, and national environmental objectives on the other. The Council’s reasons for rejecting the proposals indicate that priority had been given to local considerations whereas the reporters’ decision had treated the national need as a material consideration and regarded local considerations as subordinate to it.

Lord Stewart had refused the appeal in the Outer House and the Inner House refused a further appeal agreeing that the Council had failed to show that the reporters’ decision had been invalid. The court was not persuaded (1) that the reporters’ Decision Notice disclosed anything other than a correct understanding of the Scottish Government’s waste management policy (which had been amended  the day before the inquiry) and (2) that the reporters required to identify any geographical area other than Scotland (as a whole) as being relevant to their considerations.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

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

Outer House case considering the meaning of “waste” in terms of the lease of a landfill site near Stranraer.  The lease provided that the tenants (Shanks) were to make royalty payments to the landlords (Landmore) for “inert waste” entering the site.

The question for the court was whether soil which had been brought on to the site for the purpose of capping cells of waste deposited at the site was also “inert waste” and therefore subject to the royalty payment.

Lord Menzies found that the soil was “inert waste”.  In coming to that conclusion, he noted that the exercise was one of construction of a private commercial contact and thus differed from cases in which the courts were construing EU directives or regulations (albeit he noted in passing that the decision he reached was in line with authorities concerned with the interpretation of the EU regime).

The soil came from a construction site on which houses were being built. It was discarded by the developer who paid haulage contractors to take it away and was an unwanted by product caused by the need to provide flat foundations for the houses. Nothing was done to it before it entered the landfill site. As such, Lord Menzies took the view that the soil fell within the ordinary and natural meaning of “waste”. Although it was useful to Shanks, Lord Menzies did not consider that it was appropriate when considering the parties intentions objectively to view the situation from the perspective of the potential user of the material pointing out that anything –or almost anything –can be put to use by someone.

“Having consumed all the meat from a roast leg of lamb, I may discard it into my household rubbish. It is useless to me. My dog may have a different view of its usefulness, and may retrieve it for his own purposes – but despite its usefulness to him, it remains waste.”

The full judgment is available from Scottish Courts here.

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