Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Appeal by J29 (Scotland) LTD against the Scottish Ministers (Court of Session) [2025] CSIH 17 (03 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2025/2025csih17.html
Cite as:
[2025] CSIH 17
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2025] CSIH 17
XA49/24
Lord President
Lord Doherty
Lord Clark
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD PENTLAND, the LORD PRESIDENT
in the appeal under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
by
J29 (SCOTLAND) LIMITED
Appellant
against
THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS
Respondents
Appellant: N McLean (sol adv); Brodies LLP
Respondents: A Sutherland; Scottish Government Legal Directorate
3 June 2025
Introduction
[1]
On 19 March 2019 Renfrewshire Council granted the appellant's application for
planning permission in principle (PPiP) for a multi-use development near Junction 29 of the
M8 motorway. The site lies to the south of the St James Interchange near Burnside Place in
Paisley. The site was overgrown vacant land, which was formerly part of a wider
masterplan for development of the area. It had, however, remained undeveloped for many
years due to economic constraints. The proposed multi-use development comprised a range
2
of various land uses including housing, a hotel, public houses and restaurants, business
facilities, general industrial facilities, storage and distribution facilities and a long stay car
park. As is usual, the PPiP was made subject to a number of detailed suspensive conditions.
These required to be complied with before any development could begin. On 10 August
2022 the appellant applied to the Council for approval of matters specified in certain of the
conditions, essentially to construct housing and an access road on part of the site. We shall
refer to this application as the AMSC. The Council refused the AMSC on 21 March 2024.
The appellant appealed against the refusal to the Scottish Ministers. They appointed a
reporter. By a decision dated 14 August 2024 the reporter dismissed the appeal. The
appellant now invites this court to quash the reporter's decision on the ground that it is not
within the powers of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (see
section 239(1)(b)(i)); in particular, that he erred in law by concluding that the AMSC fell
outside the scope of the PPiP, that he failed properly to interpret the conditions of the PPiP,
and that his reasoning and conclusions were inadequate.
Planning permission in principle
[2]
Under section 59 of the 1997 Act (as substituted by section 21 of the Planning etc.
(Scotland) Act 2006) planning permission in principle is defined as:
"...planning permission (granted in accordance with the provisions of regulations or
a development order)--
(a) in respect of the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations
in, on, over or under land, and
(b) subject to a condition, imposed under section 37(1)(a), that the development in
question will not be begun until certain matters (which may, but need not be,
particularised in the application) have been approved by the planning authority or as
the case may be the Scottish Ministers."
3
[3]
The concept of planning permission in principle replaced the earlier system of
outline planning permission and approval of reserved matters. An application for PPiP
necessarily contains less detail than an application for detailed planning permission. In
particular, it does not require plans and drawings, other than a location plan; does not
require a design or design and access statement; but requires to describe the location of the
access points to the development from a road (Collar, Planning, 5th ed (2023) paragraph 5.05;
Planning Circular 3/2022, Development Management Procedures (Scottish Government, 2022)
paragraphs 3.73.9).
[4]
Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 governs the procedure for seeking approval, consent
or agreement required by a condition imposed on a grant of PPiP. An AMSC is not an
application for planning permission. The aim of the provisions in the 2013 Regulations is to
ensure that an opportunity is provided for consultation to take place at the stage when the
key details of a development which has previously been approved in principle are
submitted (Planning Circular 3 of 2022, paragraph 3.15).
The PPiP and the AMSC
[5]
Condition 2 of the PPiP required that before development commenced in any
development area or phase, a written application and plans for the development within that
area or phase, in respect of a series of specified matters, was to be submitted to, and be
approved by, the planning authority. The matters specified included: (g) access and
parking arrangements, including the provision of any new roads and junctions; and (h) the
layout of the site.
4
[6]
Condition 3 provided that, in accordance with the approved Indicative Masterplan
drawing, the consent comprised certain specified maximum development areas for the
various use classes approved for development. The reason given for this condition was
stated to be in order to define the permission and to allow the planning authority to retain
effective control, to ensure that the scale of the development did not exceed that assessed by
the supporting transport assessment and to ensure that the scale and operation of the
proposed development did not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the trunk
road network.
[7]
Condition 4 required that the detailed submissions required by condition 2 should
include full drainage impact assessments. Condition 6 provided that the development of
any area or phase was not to be brought into use until a noise assessment had been
submitted and approved by the planning authority.
[8]
The plans and drawings relevant to the PPiP approval were listed in a paper apart
and were stated to form part of the decision notice. The approved plans comprised (a) a
"Masterplan Site Area", which showed the overall site boundaries and (b) an "Indicative
Masterplan", which served to break down the overall site into areas for specific uses and to
specify maximum development areas for each of the uses approved in principle.
[9]
The general location of the area is shown in the following plan:
5
[10]
The Indicative Masterplan is shown here:
[11]
The AMSC related to a proposed residential development, including its access,
which would occupy an area of approximately 6.7 hectares towards the east of the wider
development site area. The residential development would be accessed from Ferguslie Park
Avenue via the road which previously provided access to a now demolished housing
scheme situated to the north of the former railway line. The access road would lead to a
T-junction within the proposed residential development, which itself would be formed
around a series of new interconnecting roads. This phase of the overall masterplan
development would include a mixture of two to five bedroom properties consisting of
25 three-storey townhouses and 155 two-storey houses contained within a variety of
detached, semi-detached and terraced house types.
6
[12]
The detailed layout submitted in support of the AMSC is shown here:
The Council's reasons for refusal of the AMSC
[13]
By decision notice dated 21 March 2024 the Council refused the application for two
reasons. The first related to impact on educational infrastructure due to the capacities of
local schools. This reason is no longer relevant as the reporter did not support the Council's
reasoning on the point. The second reason for refusal was that the proposed development
did not provide suitable integration and connectivity with the surrounding area given its
reliance on a single access point from Ferguslie Park Avenue to the south. It was therefore
contrary to national and local planning policies.
The reporter's decision
[14]
The reporter noted (paragraph 11) that the Council's Roads Department objected to
the proposal primarily because the residential scheme would differ from the approved
7
Indicative Masterplan and would prevent a linkage from West March Road in the north.
Without this strategic link the department contended that the development would prohibit
the future adoption of West March Road and the development of the land to the north end
of the wider masterplan area. In not providing the strategic vehicular link, the opportunity
would be lost to remove a series of identified traffic constraints within the area which would
also support the investments taking place in Paisley Town Centre and reduce trips on the
town centre circulatory traffic system, thereby reducing congestion while improving place
and journey times. Without the link to the north the residential development would be a
satellite or cul-de-sac, which failed to comply with national policy.
[15]
There were accordingly two relevant matters relevant to assessment of the appeal:
the single point of vehicular access to the residential development; and the appellant's
failure to deliver or safeguard the route of the strategic road link as depicted within the
Indicative Masterplan.
[16]
The Masterplan identified specific areas for each of the uses approved in principle. It
was directly referred to in condition 3 of the PPiP wherein the maximum development area
for each of the approved uses was defined. The Masterplan also depicted a reconfigured
primary road network with West March Road extending westwards to connect with
Burnside Place and beyond to Blackstoun Road. The reconfiguration of West March Road
was also shown to include a realignment, which would result in the removal of the existing
roundabout and the formation of a new roundabout junction at the northeast corner of the
existing long stay parking area where it met the development site. A connecting road was
shown on the Masterplan to extend southwards from the new roundabout between the
existing parking area and the areas within the development site marked for hotel and
8
residential uses. The areas identified for the roads infrastructure on the Masterplan were
discrete from the areas identified for the approved uses.
[17]
The reconfigured road network was a key feature; it had been intentionally included
in the Masterplan. It served to provide a framework for the development of the overall area
covered by the PPiP. While the appellant contended that the proposed layout did not
preclude future pedestrian and road connectivity to the north, both of the routes identified
by the appellant in that connection would involve the passage of traffic through the
residential development area with its associated traffic calming measures. Conversely, the
road depicted on the Masterplan would not have those disadvantages as it would be to the
west of the housing development.
[18]
The reconfigured road layout was critical to the strategic objective of developing the
site as a whole. While the appellant argued that there was no condition specifically
requiring facilitation of the through route, it was relevant that the maximum size for each of
the approved uses aligned directly with the layout in the Masterplan. This showed that
consideration had clearly been given to ensuring that incompatible uses were not positioned
in close proximity to one another. It was reasonable to conclude that there was a general
expectation for future applications to honour the boundaries and locations of each of the
approved uses and thus the areas of infrastructure around which the approved areas were
arranged. The Council had anticipated that the ultimate site arrangement would reflect that
set out within the Masterplan; this was clear from the report of handling in relation to the
grant of the PPiP. The proposal would result in the development of land which was
earmarked for infrastructure within the Masterplan, specifically the connecting route which
would serve to link the Council land positioned to the south of the development area beside
Ferguslie Park Avenue to West March Road in the north. The route of the road had been
9
intentionally excluded from the residential housing allocation to ensure that the strategic
link could be realised.
[19]
Regardless of the status of the Masterplan, any proposal to develop an area of land
awarded planning permission in principle had to demonstrate effectively that it would not
compromise the future delivery of the wider development area. It would not be appropriate
for the strategic route identified within the Masterplan to pass through the residential
development along roads which had been designed with local traffic in mind.
[20]
In paragraph 21 of his decision the reporter drew together the determining issues as
he saw them:
"Ultimately, I do not accept that the proposal accords with the wider planning
permission in principle and I consider that the development as submitted would
compromise the overall vision of the Indicative Masterplan approved by 18/638/PP
(sic). I consider that the requirement in Condition 2 of 18/0638/PP to agree access and
layout was intended to ensure that a suitable solution could be identified that would
ensure the deliverability of all areas / uses approved. Having viewed the site and the
wider masterplan area, I consider the fact that the appeal site encroaches on the
defined route of the road to be a material consideration that weighs heavily against
the proposal as I have been presented with no evidence that there are suitable
alternative routes."
[21]
In paragraph 22 the reporter said this:
"Because this appeal relates to an application for the approval of matters specified by
condition, the development plan does not have primacy. It is, however, material to
my consideration of this case. Whilst development plan policies and related guidance
may technically support single points of access to residential developments of fewer
than 300 units as highlighted by the appellant, the suitability of such an access cannot
be taken in isolation without having regard to the future viability of the wider area
covered by the planning permission in principle approval. On balance, I do not find
compliance with a policy regarding a single point of access to a residential
development to outweigh the negative impacts identified."
[22]
In paragraph 23 the reporter set out his conclusion:
"In conclusion, I consider that the proposal as submitted does not properly consider
the development of the wider area granted planning permission in principle, instead
focusing upon only one discrete area. The Indicative Masterplan approved as part of
18/0638/PP presents one option through which the overall site could be developed.
10
The proposal would prevent the strategic approach set out within the approved
Indicative Masterplan from being realised and no alternative scheme has been
submitted to convince me that in granting approval for the proposal the
development of the wider area would not be compromised as contended by the
Roads Authority. I consequently agree with the council that the proposed
development does not provide suitable integration and connectivity with the
surrounding area."
Appellant's submissions
[23]
The reporter erred in concluding that the PPiP required there to be a through road.
His reasoning and conclusion were ambiguous in the sense that they fell between two
different categories of refusal: (a) a decision that the AMSC fell outside the boundaries of
the PPiP and (b) a decision that the proposal was not supported by the development plan.
He had not come down clearly in favour of either.
[24]
The reporter refused the appeal because he did not accept that the proposal accorded
with the wider PPiP and because the development as submitted would have compromised
the overall vision of the Indicative Masterplan approved in the PPiP (paragraph 21). The
determination of whether the AMSC fell within the boundaries of the PPiP involved
interpreting the PPiP and applying the facts contained within the AMSC to the PPiP. It was
a matter of legal interpretation and not an exercise of planning judgement. The reporter's
legal interpretation was flawed.
[25]
The PPiP did not require the delivery of a through road/linkage to West March Road,
described by the reporter as "the strategic road link". What he meant by "strategic" in this
context was unclear. The Masterplan was "indicative" only. The residential phase was
merely the first phase of a wider development and did not preclude future proposals for
pedestrian and road connectivity. The requirement for a strategic link was not a condition
of the PPiP nor was it delineated in the Masterplan. If it was a matter of determinative
11
importance to the development, it ought to have been made the subject of a condition
(Countesswells Development Limited v Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc [2022] 4 WLUK
487). As there was no such condition the appellant was entitled to omit the strategic road
link from the AMSC (R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex p. Greater
London Council (1986) 51 P&CR 120).
[26]
The Council's decision to refuse the AMSC focused on the single access point to the
proposed development, not a failure to deliver a strategic road link. An email dated 7 June
2023 from the Council to the appellant's agents stated that while there was a preference for a
through road, the Council accepted that this was not a condition of the PPiP and that the
omission of the through road in the AMSC was not a determining issue. The appellant was
entitled to rely on this assurance. The reporter ought to have taken it into consideration.
The appellant was entitled to certainty as to what was required when bringing forward the
details of the development. There was no obligation imposed on the appellant to guarantee
a strategic road link, nor its method of delivery.
[27]
The respondents contended that the reporter had not concluded that the PPiP
required a through road/linkage to West March Road. This was not a reasonable
interpretation of his decision when read as a whole. If (contrary to the appellant's
submission) he did not reach such a conclusion, his reasons were not adequately expressed.
He failed to explain the factors he relied on in identifying the aspects of the AMSC (other
than the requirement for a strategic link road) which fell outwith the boundaries of the PPiP.
He did not explain why he considered that conditions 2 and 3 of the PPiP supported the
conclusion that a through road/linkage was a requirement of the PPiP or otherwise
prohibited the layout in the AMSC. Further, he did not provide an explanation of the extent
12
to which (if at all) the AMSC failed to comply with key policies under NPF4 and the
Council's local development plan.
[28]
The Masterplan could not at the same time require a through road/linkage to West
March Road and be "one option" through which the overall site could be developed
(paragraph 23). The reporter's reasoning was contradictory and irrational or, in the
alternative, he failed to give proper adequate or intelligible reasons for the decision.
Respondents' submissions
[29]
The reporter did not conclude that the AMSC fell outwith the boundaries of the PPiP,
nor did he conclude that the PPiP required a through road/linkage to West March Road.
[30]
The decision represented the considered exercise of planning judgement by the
reporter. The appellant mischaracterised the reporter's lawful exercise of planning
judgement as an error of law. The reporter's planning judgement was not contradictory or
irrational. He provided adequate reasoning for his decision.
[31]
The Council refused the AMSC because it did not provide "suitable integration and
connectivity with the surrounding area given its reliance on a single access point" (Report of
Handling Application 22/0569/PP, p 16). The application was not refused because it required
to conform with (part of) the Masterplan. The reporter did not treat strict compliance with
the Masterplan as necessary. Had he done so, the AMSC might have failed solely on the
basis that part of the residential development fell outwith the area marked for such
development on the Masterplan. Strict compliance was not part of the PPiP and the reporter
did not treat it as such. The Masterplan was not a meaningless document in the context of
the AMSC. It represented the wider vision for the development; it anticipated development
13
for a multitude of land uses. The reporter required to have regard to its objective in
considering the cohesion of the entire development.
[32]
The reporter was satisfied that there were two discrete roads infrastructure and
connectivity issues raised by the Roads Department. The first was the single point of
vehicular access to the residential development. The second was the appellant's failure to
deliver or safeguard the route of the strategic road link as depicted in the Masterplan
(paragraph 12). He considered that the areas identified for the roads infrastructure on the
Masterplan were discrete from the areas identified for approved use. He concluded that this
was a key feature of the Masterplan and was intentionally included so as to comply with
local development policy. Consequently, the reporter considered that the reconfigured road
layout was critical to the strategic objective of developing the site as a whole (paragraph 15).
[33]
The reporter did not elevate the status of the Masterplan, nor did he interpret the
PPiP in such a way as to require roads as depicted on the Masterplan. The reporter correctly
treated the Masterplan as a significant document, but recognised that it remained indicative
only and that strict compliance with it was not necessary. This was clear given that the
reporter considered that the Masterplan presented just one option through which the overall
site could be developed. He considered that the proposed residential development did not
provide suitable integration and connectivity with the surrounding area (paragraph 23).
This was the reason for the failure of the AMSC. His decision was a matter of planning
judgement. The reporter was within his rights to treat the Masterplan as a significant
document and to consider the likely effect of granting the AMSC on the site as a whole. The
reporter made it clear that he was concerned about compromising the future of the
development (paragraph 19). He was entitled to conclude, by exercising his planning
judgement, that the layout of the proposed residential development was not acceptable.
14
[34]
The reporter did not conclude that the PPiP required a through road/linkage to West
March Road. His approach did not contradict the terms of the email dated 7 June 2023. He
considered alternative methods of achieving connectivity as proposed by the appellant
(paragraph 16). He did not consider them to be suitable due to the fact that they would pass
through the residential area, which would incorporate traffic calming measures. The
appellant and the Council had been in discussion about suitable access roads. The Council
had considered that the matter could have been addressed relatively easily, but the Report
of Handling for the AMSC indicated that proposals for access to the north of the
development had not been taken forward by the appellant.
[35]
The development in its entirety required a strategic approach. Part of that strategy
was to ensure that there was the ability to deliver the development as a whole project (albeit
in stages) and that the connectivity of the development was not compromised by any of the
AMSC applications.
[36]
The decision was not irrational, but the result of a legitimate exercise of planning
judgement. The AMSC ran contrary to the totality of the vision contained within the
Masterplan. Considered in its full terms the reader of the decision would not be left in any
doubt about what material considerations were taken into account and why the appeal was
refused.
Decision
[37]
The legal principles governing determination of the appeal are clear and
well-established. Section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
empowers the court to quash a reporter's decision in certain prescribed and limited
circumstances. To do so the court must be satisfied that the decision is outwith the
15
reporter's powers or that he has failed to comply with any of the Act's requirements. A
reporter's decision will be outside his powers if he has improperly exercised the discretion
entrusted to him or made a material error of law going to the root of the question for his
determination. It will also be beyond his powers if he has taken account of an irrelevant
consideration, failed to take account of relevant and material considerations, proceeded on a
fact for which there was no evidential basis, or reached a decision which no reasonable
person could have reached (Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984
SLT 345, Lord President (Emslie) at 347-348).
[38]
The court is thus concerned only with the legality of decisions made by a reporter
and not with their merits or, in particular, with a planning judgement exercised by him.
Such an exercise of judgement falls wholly within the reporter's sphere of discretionary
decision-making and can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse
(Tesco Stores v Environment Secretary [1995] 1 WLR 759, Lord Keith of Kinkel at 764H and
Lord Hoffmann at 780H).
[39]
Issues of interpretation of planning policy, which are appropriate for judicial
analysis, and issues of judgement in the application of that policy, which are within the
province of the planning decision-maker, are fundamentally distinct. The two issues should
not be elided (Hopkins Homes Ltd v Communities Secretary [2017] 1 WLR 1865 at paragraphs 26
and 73).
[40]
An AMSC must fall within the boundaries of the relative PPiP and cannot be used to
bring in matters outside the scope of the PPiP (Inverclyde District Council v Secretary of State
for Scotland 1982 SC (HL) 64).
[41]
Applying these principles to the circumstances of the present case, the reporter's
decision is not vitiated by any material error in law. While it is possible to read some of the
16
earlier references in the decision as perhaps suggesting that the Masterplan was
incorporated in the PPiP to a greater extent than specified in condition 3, the reporter did
not in his final analysis determine the appeal on the basis of any such misunderstanding.
Instead he reached his conclusion on the basis of an exercise of planning judgement, in
which he took account of all the relevant considerations. The court has no power to interfere
with such a judgement; it is a matter falling exclusively within the realm of the reporter's
discretion. There was no argument advanced to the court that the reporter's decision was an
irrational one or that he had erred in the exercise of his discretionary powers.
[42]
The reporter did not interpret the PPiP as requiring a road or roads in the position
depicted on the Masterplan. In paragraph 15 he correctly noted that the areas shown for
roads infrastructure on the Masterplan were discrete from the areas identified for the
approved uses. He considered that the reconfigured road network was a "key feature",
which had been intentionally included in order to provide a "framework" for the
development of the overall area. The reconfigured road layout was critical to the "strategic
objective" of developing the site as a whole. It is clear from these parts of his decision that
the reporter proceeded on the basis that the PPiP was intended to set the broad contours for
orderly development of the whole site in a manner which would ensure inter alia the
provision of suitable infrastructure, particularly an appropriate road network. He correctly
treated the Masterplan as a significant document, but he did not elevate it to a status any
higher than that.
[43]
The fact that the reporter ultimately determined the appeal in the exercise of his
planning judgement is clear from paragraph 19 of his decision where he stated that
"regardless of the status" of the Masterplan he considered that any proposal to develop an
element of land which had been awarded planning permission in principle must not
17
compromise the future delivery of the wider development area. The reporter then went on
to consider the effect of the nearby St Mirren football stadium and the levels of traffic likely
to be generated on match days. He addressed the issues of locally-based commercial
vehicles passing through the residential development and of other types of traffic accessing
the approved commercial and recreational areas, as well as airport parking (both existing
and proposed). He considered the impact of traffic seeking an efficient route leading to the
surrounding trunk road network. These were all matters of planning judgement.
[44]
In paragraph 21 the reporter addressed his mind to the question of whether the
AMSC was in accordance with the "overall vision" of the Masterplan. The reference to the
overall vision is important. It demonstrates that the reporter was concerned to understand
the fundamental aims and purpose of the PPiP. Having done so, he considered whether the
AMSC would faithfully implement the aims and purpose of the PPiP. In his view it would
not. He concluded that it would compromise delivery of the strategy for development
reflected in the PPiP. In following through this approach, the reporter was clearly engaging
in an exercise of planning judgement. This was quintessentially a matter for him. He made
clear in the same paragraph that the purpose of condition 2, which concerned matters of
access and layout, was to ensure that all the approved areas and uses were delivered.
Having visited the AMSC site and the wider area, he formed the view that the encroachment
of the road on the route shown in the Masterplan was a material consideration, which
weighed heavily against approval of the AMSC. The reporter was entitled to regard the fact
that there would be such encroachment as a material consideration and to give it such
weight as he considered appropriate. The court cannot interfere with his decisions on these
issues.
18
[45]
In his conclusion in paragraph 23 the reporter considered the question of whether the
AMSC properly took into account the need identified in the PPiP for development of the
wider area. He correctly recognised that the Masterplan identified "one option" through
which the overall site could be developed. The reference to the Masterplan identifying one
option puts it beyond doubt that the reporter did not ultimately misdirect himself by
treating the Masterplan as in some sense a mandatory document, with which strict
compliance was essential when it came to subsequent consideration of detailed proposals for
development.
[46]
The reporter also took into account, as he was entitled to do, the fact that the
appellant had not presented any alternative scheme such as to convince him that if he were
to grant approval the development of the wider area would not be compromised. In
reaching this conclusion, he was again making a judgement on the planning merits of the
AMSC. In paragraph 16 of his decision the reporter evaluated and rejected certain potential
future vehicular points of access to the north of the site; the appellant had made reference to
these as possibilities in their appeal statement. The reporter held that both of these routes
would involve the passage of vehicular traffic through the proposed residential
development and its associated traffic calming measures. The road depicted on the
Masterplan, in contrast, would not entail such disadvantages. This aspect of the reporter's
reasoning shows that he had regard to the overall objective of the PPiP to secure
development of the whole site so as to provide appropriate integration and connectivity
with the surrounding area.
[47]
The final sentence in paragraph 23 succinctly sums up the reporter's reasoning. He
concluded that the AMSC did not provide "suitable integration and connectivity" with the
surrounding area. In reaching this view, the reporter can again be seen to be engaging in an
19
exercise of planning judgement. It is not open to the court to review or interfere with such a
judgement.
[48]
At the end of the day, the court considers that the reporter was entitled to come to
the conclusion, in the exercise of his planning judgement, that the layout of the proposed
residential development was unacceptable, having regard to the vision for the development
and the overall strategy extending to the wider area, all as reflected in the PPiP. He correctly
identified the determining issues and adequately explained his reasons for reaching his
conclusion. His reasons were intelligible and such as to enable the reader to understand
why matters were determined as they were. His conclusions on the determining issues were
[49]
In the result the appeal must be refused.