Helensburgh Community Council for Judicial Review [2025] CSOH 105
The community council challenged the decision of the council’s Policy and Resources Committee to sell an area of land for use as a supermarket. It was held that the community council had sufficient interest to bring the judicial review. However, there was no common law duty of fairness when an authority is disposing of its own property and so the council had acted lawfully in the appointment of a preferred developer.
The case can be read here.
Y v Glasgow City Council [2025] CSIH 30
A local authority had not failed to comply with its duties to provide a homeless applicant with interim and permanent accommodation under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1985 Pt II s29(1)(c) and s31(2). The applicant had twice refused the authority’s offers of suitable alternative interim accommodation, and her household had not been in temporary accommodation too long.
The case can be read here.
Kirk Harrison v Aberdeen City Council [2026] SC ABE 18
Mr Harrison sought to appeal against the decision by the council’s licensing committee to refuse his application for a short-term let licence. A neighbour had objected to the application due to issues relating to waste management and parking. The Sheriff refused the appeal on the basis that the committee was entitled to conclude the property was not suitable or convenient as a short-term let due to the possibility of undue public nuisance. The Sheriff also held that the committee had exercised its discretion in an unreasonable manner. The appeal was refused.
The decision can be read here.
Paul Dixon v Angus Council [2025] CSIH 29
The Inner House dismissed an appeal against the council’s decision to grant planning permission for a crematorium on agricultural land. It was held that the council’s development management review committee had correctly understood the terms and effect of the development plan policies and had properly balanced competing considerations. It was entitled to conclude that the development complied with the development plan as a whole and had not taken any irrelevant considerations into account. The decision notice gave adequate reasons for planning permission being granted.
The decision can be read here.
Norman Esslemont v Aberdeen City Council [2025] CSIH 31
The Inner House dismissed an appeal against a traffic regulation order which introduced bus gates in the city centre. The appellant was able to claim he had been substantially prejudiced by the alleged procedural failure to obtain consent from the Scottish Ministers and inadequate notification given. However, the council had not failed to comply with a “relevant requirement” by not seeking the consent of the Scottish Ministers, as access to premises was not “prevented”. The council had not taken into account an irrelevant consideration by considering financial implications, and it was entitled to weigh up various considerations as it thought fit.
The decision can be read here.
