Land Securities Group plc (Appellants) v. Scottish Ministers and others (Respondents) (Scotland)

A public authority must interpret its planning policy according to its language, purpose and context. A policy need not be applied to a decision for which it is unsuitable or incapable of sensible operation.

The sequential approach to retail development protects existing town centres by preferring suitable sites within them. It presupposes a retail or similar development capable of relocation, subdivision or adaptation. It does not govern the designation of a new town centre where retailing forms an integral part of a comprehensive regeneration scheme and cannot be separated without destroying the scheme’s character.

The Scottish Ministers approved an alteration to a structure plan which supported a new town centre, including substantial retail floorspace, as part of the comprehensive regeneration of the former Ravenscraig steelworks. The alteration also added the proposed centre to the plan’s list of safeguarded town centres.

The appellants challenged the approval under section 238(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. An Extra Division of the Inner House refused the appeal: [2005] CSIH 33.

The issue before the House was whether the Ministers had misinterpreted and failed to apply the sequential approach in NPPG 8, which ordinarily preferred existing town-centre sites for retail and other town-centre uses.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Lord Rodger of Earlsferry delivered the leading speech. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Lord Mance agreed with his reasons.

2. Per Lord Rodger, NPPG 8’s sequential approach was designed to support existing town centres. Its purpose was to protect their vitality and viability from development elsewhere. A retail development did not receive automatic priority merely because it would be situated within a projected new town centre.

3. The sequential approach presupposed a retail or similar development capable of being placed in an existing town centre. It contemplated flexibility concerning its format, scale, built form, component parts and range of goods. If the retail element at Ravenscraig had stood alone, the policy would have been relevant. The Ministers could then have departed from it only by giving reasons.

4. The proposed Ravenscraig town centre was, however, a unitary planning concept. It combined retail and leisure facilities, community uses, housing and transport infrastructure. It was itself an integral part of a wider regeneration scheme. It could not be relocated to an existing centre, while separating its retail element would fundamentally alter or destroy the proposed development. The Ministers were therefore entitled to conclude that the sequential approach was inoperable and did not apply to the alteration.

5. The alteration recognised the likely effects upon Motherwell and Wishaw. Complementary action for those centres was to be secured through section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or other legally binding arrangements. Implementation was a matter for the local planning authority through the local plan and individual planning decisions.

6. The Joint Committee was also entitled to include Ravenscraig in the structure plan’s list of safeguarded town centres. Although no centre yet existed, the plan envisaged its creation during the plan period. Listing it rationally promoted investment and protected the intended centre’s future viability.

1. House of Lords: Dismissed the appeal and upheld the Inner House’s refusal of the statutory challenge: [2006] UKHL 48.

2. Inner House of the Court of Session: An Extra Division refused the appellants’ appeal under section 238(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997: [2005] CSIH 33.