Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900 (63 and 64 Vict. cap. cl) enacts—sec. 4—“ Interpretation.—.… ‘Width’ in relation to street or lane means the width of the carriageway and foot-pavements taken together.” Section 9 (2)—“ Register and Map of Streets.—( a) The Corporation shall on or before the first day of January in the year One thousand nine hundred and two, or as soon as conveniently may be thereafter, cause a register (hereinafter referred to as “the register”) to be prepared of all the public streets then in existence in the city, in which may be entered with regard to each such street.… (iv) The width … ( b) [This subsection provided for the publication of the register and map.] ( c) Any proprietor who may be aggrieved by any entry in the register or omission therefrom, or by any relative marking on the map, may within the said period of two months appeal to the Sheriff against the same. The Sheriff shall, after the expiry of the said period of two months, deal with any such appeal in a summary manner, and may order any entry in the register or relative marking on the map to be deleted or altered, or direct such other or further entry to be made in the register or marking to be made on the map as he shall think fit, and his decision shall be final. Where any appeal is taken, or where within the said period of two months any representation is made to the Corporation with regard to any entry, omission, or marking, the Corporation may, with the consent of the Sheriff, make any alteration on the register and map which may appear necessary.” Section 18—“ Grounds for Refusal to Sanction Plans of Streets.—The Dean of Guild shall not, except with the consent of the Corporation, and subject to such conditions, if any, as the Corporation may prescribe, grant decree for the formation or laying out of any street—(1) Where the width of such street proposed to be formed or laid out ( a) is less than 50 feet, or (b) where the width in case of a street the distance of the building lines whereof is at least 30 feet

Page: 774↓

from the centre is less than 36 feet.” … Section 20—“ Restraining Erections within Certain Distance in Streets.—The Dean of Guild shall not without the consent of the Corporation grant decree for the erection or re-erection of any building upon ground adjoining any street, unless on the condition that one-half of the width of such street, measuring such half from the centre of such street towards such ground, shall be cleared of all structures, if any, existing thereon, and shall, subject to the provisions of the Police Acts, be wholly dedicated to the public for street purposes, and this condition shall be presumed to be made by the Dean of Guild in every decree granted by him. Where the Dean of Guild shall with the consent of the Corporation grant any decree for the erection or re-erection of any such building nearer to the centre of such street than one-half of the width thereof, it shall be a condition of such decree that the space between such building and the centre of such street shall be cleared of all structures, if any, existing thereon, and shall, subject to the provisions of the Police Acts, be wholly dedicated to the public for street purposes, and this condition shall be presumed to be made by the Dean of Guild in every such decree. For the purpose of this section the width of a public street shall be the width set forth in the register where such width is entered therein. And the width of a private street formed with the authority of the Dean of Guild shall be the width specified in the decree authorising the formation or laying out of such street or the width shown on the plans on which such decree proceeded. And the width of any public street of which the dimensions are not set forth in the register, and of any private street of which the dimensions are not specified or shown as aforesaid, shall be fixed by the Master of Works. And the position of the centre of any such street shall be defined by the Master of Works with reference to any application which may be made to the Dean of Guild for a lining to erect or re-erect any such building.” Section 21—“ Appeal as to Width and Centre of Streets.—Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any determination of the Master of Works under the immediately preceding section may appeal to the Dean of Guild within fourteen days thereafter, and the Dean of Guild shall thereupon have power to fix such width and define such centre of such street, and in fixing such width the Dean of Guild shall, as far as conveniently may be, have regard to the provisions as to the width of streets contained in the section of this Act whereof the marginal note is ‘Grounds for refusal to sanction plans of streets.’”

This was an action of declarator at the instance of the Caledonian Railway Company against the Corporation of Glasgow and Thomas Nisbet, C.E., Registrar of Public Streets appointed under the Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900, in which the pursuers sought to have it found and declared—(1) that the defenders were not entitled to insert in the Register of Public Streets prepared under and in terms of the said Act, section 9, sub-section (2) (a), under the heading ‘Width of Street,’ any entry stating, or to make on the Ordinance Survey map referred to in the said section of the said Act any marking showing, the width of street to be greater than the actual width thereof, where the railways, works, or properties of the pursuers fronted or abutted on the same, or where the pursuers were interested therein, and that the width stated in the entries under the said heading and shown on the said map to be the width of streets was not the actual width of the following streets where railways, works, or properties of the pursuers fronted or abutted thereon, or where the pursuers were interested therein, viz.—[ Here followed a list of streets]—and that the explanatory notes prefixed to the said register relating to the width of streets were illegal and not authorised by the said Act and were ultra vires of the defenders; (2) that the defenders were not entitled to insert in the said register under the heading ‘Distance between centre of street and building line’ any entry stating such distance where the railways, works, and properties of the pursuers fronted or abutted thereon, or where the pursuers were interested therein, unless or except where the building line was fixed by statute, decree of the Sheriff, or Dean of Guild, or any resolution of the defenders under or in pursuance of the said Act, and that the distances between the centre of the street and the building line, stated in the entries under the said heading, so far as relating to streets where the railways, works, or properties of the pursuers fronted or abutted thereon, or where the pursuers were interested therein, were not authorised by the said Act, in respect that they had not been fixed by statute, decree of the Sheriff, or the Dean of Guild, or any resolution of the defenders under or in pursuance of the said Act, and that the said entries and the explanatory notes prefixed to the said register relating to the building line were erroneous, illegal, and not authorised by the said Act, and were ultra vires of the defenders; and (3) that the entries in the said register, under the heading ‘Character of Street,’ setting forth the streets or portions thereof not maintained by the defenders (the Corporation of Glasgow), so far as relating to streets where the railways, works, or properties of the pursuers fronted or abutted thereon, or where the pursuers were interested therein, and the explanatory notes prefixed to the said register relating to the maintenance of streets, were erroneous, illegal, and not authorised by the said Act, and were ultra vires of the defenders.

The summons also contained certain ancillary clauses craving deletion of the said entries in the register as well as the markings on the map referred to in the foregoing conclusions.

The pursuers averred that they owned railways, works, and other property fronting or abutting on various streets in Glasgow, the bulk of the property owned

Page: 775↓

by them having been constructed, and being held under statutory powers.

They further averred—“(Cond. 5) The register and map prepared under the aforesaid sub-section (2) ( a) of section 9 of the said Act were placed on completion in the office of the clerk to the Corporation on 28th May 1904, and the pursuers received a large number of notices as owners of certain lands and heritages in terms of said section 9 (2) ( b). (Cond. 6) There is appended hereto a schedule marked Schedule No. 1 containing excerpts from the said register of the entries of the several streets in which the pursuers are interested. The said entries, or at least many of them, are unwarranted by said Act, or are defective and insufficient. (Cond. 7) In the case of the undernamed streets set forth in the said Schedule No. 1, the width stated in the register under the heading ‘Width of Street,’ and coloured on the Ordnance Survey map relative to the said register referred to in the said sub-section (2) ( a) of section 9 of the said Act, is not the width of the street as it actually exists where the pursuers' railways and works or properties are situated or where they front or abut thereon. There is no authority under the statutes in force in the city of Glasgow or otherwise for stating the width of the streets at a different width from that actually existing. In certain cases the width of street as stated in the register and shown on the map includes not only parts of areas of unbuilt upon land in front of property belonging to the pursuers, although not actually used as street, but also includes the railways, works, and buildings, and the solum thereof belonging to the pursuers. The following are the streets referred to, viz.—[ Here followed a list of streets]. The defenders have also prefixed to the said register certain explanatory notes set forth in the schedule marked Schedule No. 2, annexed hereto, containing certain entries relating to the width of streets, and the said explanatory notes are erroneous, illegal, incompetent, and ultra vires. (Cond. 8) In the said register, under the heading ‘Distance between centre of the street and building line,’ the defenders have, in the case of the streets set forth in the said Schedule No. 1, where the pursuers' railways, works, and properties front or abut thereon, or where the pursuers are interested therein, made entries stating the distance between the centre of the street and the building line. These distances have not been fixed by statute, or by decree of the Sheriff or the Dean of Guild, or by resolution of the defenders under or in pursuance of the provisions of the said Act of 1900, and are not authorised by the said Act or otherwise, and the entries in the register and the explanatory notes set forth in the said Schedule No. 2, so far as relating to the distance between the centre of the street and the building line, are erroneous, illegal, incompetent, and ultra vires. (Cond. 10) The defenders threaten to retain the entries objected to in the said register. If they are retained in the said register they will seriously prejudice the pursuers, and the present action has therefore become necessary.”

In answer the defenders averred (Ans. 7)—“Admitted that in the case of certain of the streets here specifically enumerated the width in the register under the heading ‘Width of Street’ is not the width of the street as it actually exists where the pursuers' railways, works, and properties are situated, or where they front or abut thereon. Explained that the width of such streets is in all cases properly entered in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, and particularly of sections 9, 18, 20, and 21, and that the colouring on the Ordnance Survey Map relative to the said register, referred to in sub-section (2) (a) of section 9 of that Act, shows in each case the width of the street as it actually exists opposite the respective properties in those streets. Explained that it is impossible to enter in said register the actual or existing widths of every public street in the city at every point in such streets. In a great number of instances such streets vary in width at numerous points, and would require as many as one hundred entries for one street. The pursuers are called upon to specify in detail the parts of areas of unbuilt-upon land in front of property belonging to them not actually used as street, and also the railway works, and buildings, and the solum thereof, belonging to them which they allege are included in the width of streets. Without such detailed information the defenders are unable to answer more specifically. Admitted that the defenders have prefixed to the said register certain explanatory notes. Explained that these explanatory notes have been prefixed by the defenders in the form adopted in order to save the necessity of constant repetitions in the body of the register.”

They further averred (Ans. 10)—“Denied that the present action has become necessary. Explained that the pursuers have, in respect of all the entries complained of, exercised their right of appeal under section 9 (2) (c) of the Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900, and that the same objections as they state in this action fall to be determined in the proceedings presently depending before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire.”

The pursuers pleaded, inter alia—“(1) The entries in the said register and explanatory notes prefixed to the register, and the markings on the said Ordnance map, being in the respects condescended on unauthorised by the Glasgow Building Regulations Act 1900, it is ultra vires of the defenders to insert them in the Register of Public Streets and mark them on the said Ordnance Survey map, and decree of declarator should be granted as concluded for.”

The defenders pleaded, inter alia—“(3) The action is incompetent and is excluded in respect the said Glasgow Building Regulations Act determines the pursuers' rights by providing a remedy by appeal to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire at the instance of any proprietor who may be aggrieved by any entry in the register or omission there

Page: 776↓

from, or by any relative marking on the map, and the decision of said Sheriff is declared to be final.”

The following is an example of the entries contained in the Schedule above referred to:—

Name of the street and commencement and trmination thereon.	Width of street	Distance between centre mencement and termination of street Character of street, building line	Character of street
Cathcart Road. From Cumberland Street to the march with the county of Renfrew at Holmlea Road.	Ft. 60	Ft. 30	Turnpike Road. Maintained by the Corporation, except (1) The Bridges over the Caledonian Railway, and (2) the Bridge over the Cathcart Railway,

In regard to this entry counsel for the pursuers stated that their property extended 650 yards along the road therein specified, and that if the contention of the defenders were upheld, the result would be to confiscate 10 feet of the pursuers property along the whole 650 yards.

The case having been reported by the Lord Ordinary (Low) to the First Division, the Court on 10th March 1905 pronounced this interlocutor:—“The Lords, upon the verbal report by Lord Low, Ordinary, in respect of the importance of the questions raised in this case, appoint the cause to be argued before Seven Judges.”

Argued for defenders (who objected to the competency of the action)—(1) On the question of competency—The action was incompetent, as under section 9, (2) the pursuer's remedy was an appeal to the Sheriff, whose decision was final. The pursuers were not entitled to invoke common law remedies to defeat a statutory undertaking, viz., the preparation of the register. They could only interfere on the defenders going beyond their statutory powers— Lord Advocate v. Police Commissioners of Perth, December 7, 1869, 8 Macph. 244, 7 S.L.R. 147. Here there was a new jurisdiction dealing with a new subject-matter, and all remedies were excluded save those provided for by the statute itself. The statute gave an appeal to the Sheriff and declared that his decision should be final. The present action was premature, for nothing had been done beyond preparing the register in terms of the statute. The statutory methods of procedure must first be exhausted— Aberdeenshire Trustees v. Knowles, June 12, 1811, Hume's Decis. 262; Craigie v. Mill, February 11, 1826, 4 S. 453, aff 2 W. & S. 642; Campbell v. Mill, June 28, 1823, 2 S. 440; Alexander v. Seymour, December 2, 1828, 7 S. 117; Crawford v. Lennox, July 15, 1852, 14 D. 1029. The Sheriff was final quoad adjusting the register, and he had not yet adjudicated on the matter. The present action should therefore be dismissed— Leith Police Commissioners v. Campbell, December 21, 1866, 5 Macph. 247, 3 S.L.R. 133. (2) On the merits—The register was under section 9 to be prepared by the Corporation, and where the width was not stated in the register the Master of Works was empowered by section 20 to fix it, subject to appeal to the Dean of Guild, section 21. The width so to be fixed could not mean merely the actual width, for section 20 implied that the street should be clear of all structures existing thereon. Under section 20 a proprietor who wished to re-erect his building was bound to draw back his building line to the edge of the street as determined by the Master of Works. Sections 9, 20, and 21 were to be read together, and their effect was to give the Dean of Guild a discretion in fixing the width— Magistrates of Portobello v. Magistrates of Edinburgh, November 9, 1882, 10 R. 130, 20 S.L.R. 92; Milne & Company v. Aberdeen District Committee, November 30, 1899, 2 F. 220, 37 S.L.R. 171. If the Act meant that nothing but the actual width was to be inserted in the register, the elaborate rights of appeal given would be meaningless. If width meant merely the tape measurement, it was a pure question of fact, which could be at once ascertained, and as to which no appeal would be necessary. The present case was governed by M'Dougall v. Nisbet, November 17, 1904, 7 F. 55, 42 S.L.R. 108; and Neilson v. Wilson & Company, November 17, 1904, 7 F. 60, 42 S.L.R. 111.

Argued for pursuers—Width meant the actual width. It was a question of fact on which it was not necessary to go in the first place to the Sheriff. The facts to be entered with regard to street were existing facts, e.g., the name, the situation, the point of commencement. Why should the width not be the existing width? The ideal width which the Master of Works claimed right to fix involved encroachment on private property in some instances of from 25 to 30 feet on one side and from 12 to 15 feet on the other. Width in section 9 meant actual width; therefore in section 20 and 21 it could not mean ideal width. “Structures” in section 20 did not mean the main part of a building, but only porticoes and similar kinds of structures, and it might be that these would have to be removed. What the Master of Works had to do under section 20 was just what the Corporation had to do under section 9, viz., ascertain as a question of fact the existing width. The defenders were not entitled to make a register of imaginary streets. The cases cited by the pursuers as to the competency of the action were not in point, as the question there was, whether certain statutory provisions had been duly complied with. Here it was a question of ultra vires, and the finality clause was inappplicable— Stirling v. Hutcheon, May 25, 1874, 1 R. 935, 11 S.L.R. 542; Shand v. Henderson, June 17, 1814, 2 Dow's App. 519; Bruce v. Corporation of Glasgow, November 12, 1903, 6 F. 94, 41 S.L.R. 61.

At advising—

Page: 777↓