British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> APPEAL BY MacTAGGART AND MICKEL HOMES LTD AND OTHERS AGAINST INVERCLYDE COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [2020] ScotCS CSIH_44 (22 July 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSIH_44.html
Cite as: [2020] CSIH 44, 2021 SLT 19, 2020 GWD 28-373, [2020] ScotCS CSIH_44
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page 1 ⇓
FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
Lord President
Lord Brodie
Lord Woolman
OPINION OF THE COURT
[2020] CSIH 44
XA108/19
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD PRESIDENT
in the appeals under section 238 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 by
(1) MACTAGGART and MICKEL HOMES LIMITED; (2) MILLER HOMES LIMITED;
(3) CALA MANAGEMENT LIMITED; (4) PERSIMMON HOMES LIMITED; and
(5) WALLACE LAND INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Appellants
against
INVERCLYDE COUNCIL
and
Respondents
THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS
Interested Parties
______________
22 July 2020
Appellants: Armstrong QC; Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
Respondents: Gale QC; Clyde & Co (Scotland) LLP
Interested Parties: J McKinlay; Scottish Government Legal Directorate
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by five housing developers against the decision of the respondents
to adopt the 2019 Inverclyde Local Development Plan. Two reporters were appointed by the
interested parties to examine, report on and make recommendations about the proposed
Page 2 ⇓
2
LDP. The appellants challenge the chapter of the Examination Report entitled: Housing Land
Supply, Housing Supply Targets and Housing Land Requirement.
[2] A number of issues arise for determination: (1) did the reporter use the appropriate
methodology when determining whether there was a 5-year effective housing land supply;
(2) was proper account taken of the “generosity allowance” which is to be applied to
Housing Supply Targets to produce the Housing Land Requirements; (3) did the LDP make
sufficient provision for private tenure housing; (4) did the LDP identify sufficient Housing
Land Supply for the different market areas for the two periods in the Strategic Development
Plan; (5) did the reporter use the correct figures from the 2018 Housing Land Audit; and (6)
overall, did these errors result in the LDP failing to comply with SPP and the SDP?
[3] For ease of reference, the following acronyms are occasionally used:
HfS
HLA
HLR
HLS
HMA
HNDA
HSMA
HST
LDP
SDP
SPP
Homes for Scotland
Housing Land Audit
Housing Land Requirement
Housing Land Supply
Housing Market Area
Housing Need and Demand Assessment
Housing Sub-Market Area
Housing Supply Target
Local Development Plan
Strategic Development Plan
Scottish Planning Policy
Law and Policy Framework
[4] The appeal concerns the adoption of an LDP, rather than a decision on a specific
application for planning permission. It was in the latter context that much of the law and
Page 3 ⇓
3
policy, which is relevant to the present appeal, was recently explored in Gladman
concerned in part with the methodology which should be adopted to calculate the number
of years’ effective housing land supply. This was necessary for the purpose of the planning
authority’s Housing Land Audit, the figures in which were material to the determination of
a particular planning application for housing development. The HLAs constitute an annual
snapshot of the amount of housing land available (Planning Advice Note 2/2010 Affordable
Housing and Housing Land Audits, para 45). In this appeal, the court is again concerned with,
inter alia, a dispute about the methodology which should be used to produce the figures
which will appear in the LDP. This is important because the effective Housing Land Supply
should be sufficient to meet the Housing Land Requirement which is set for the respondents
in the SDP. The latter was approved by the interested parties in July 2017.
[5] A local authority is required to adopt an LDP at least every five years (1997 Act,
s 16(1)(a)(ii)). The authority must ensure that the LDP is consistent with the SDP (s 16(6)).
The SDP establishes an HST and an HLR for each local authority housing market area. Once
an LDP is in place, there is a presumption that a planning decision will be determined in
accordance with it, unless material considerations indicate otherwise (ibid s 25(1)). The
decision-maker must have regard to the LDP (ibid s 37(2)); hence its significance for the
appellants’ businesses. One of the functions of an LDP is to allocate sufficient sites for
housing. It needs to demonstrate how the HLR is to be met. That involves having a 5-year
supply of effective housing land (Scottish Planning Policy, para 110). Unless such a supply
exists, the presumption in favour of sustainable development becomes a significant material
consideration (ibid, paras 32, 33 and 125) in individual planning applications.
Page 4 ⇓
4
[6] In preparing an LDP, the local planning authority will compile a main issues report
(1997 Act s 17). Representations may then be made to the authority. The appellants, both
individually and through their collective body, namely Homes for Scotland, made such
representations. The proposed LDP was then produced and submitted to the interested
parties for examination (ibid s 18). The reporter, who was appointed by the interested
parties, carried out an examination. The Town and Country Planning (Development
Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 provide (reg 21) that an examination “is only to assess
issues raised in unresolved representations”. Once that is done, the reporter will set out his
conclusions and recommendations, including any amendments to the LDP (ibid s 19).
[7] The planning authority must (1997 Act, s 19(10)) make the modifications which the
reporter recommends, unless they contravene the National Planning Framework (ie SPP),
and/or the SDP, or the reporter could not reasonably have reached the relevant conclusion
(Town and Country Planning (Grounds for Declining to Follow Recommendations)
(Scotland) Regulations 2009, reg 2; Scottish Government’s Planning Circular 6/2013:
Development Planning, paras 92-94). A person who is aggrieved by the content of the LDP
can challenge the validity of the plan by way of an appeal (1997 Act, s 238) on the grounds
that it is not within the powers in the Act or relative regulations. The court may, in that
event, “wholly or in part quash the plan”.
Scottish Planning Policy
[8] SPP contains policies which are directed towards the delivery of new homes. The
policy principle is that:
“110. The planning system should:
Page 5 ⇓
5
identify a generous supply of land for each housing market area within the
plan area to support the achievement of the [HLR] across all tenures,
maintaining at least a 5-year supply of effective housing land at all times;
…
113. Plans should be informed by a robust … (HNDA), prepared in line with the
Scottish Government’s HNDA Guidance. This assessment provides part of the
evidence base to inform … development plans … It should produce results both at
the level of the functional housing market area and at local authority level, and cover
all tenures. …
…
115. Plans should address the supply of land for all housing. They should set out
the [HST] (separated into affordable and market sector) for each functional housing
market area, based on evidence from the HNDA. The [HST] is a policy view of the
number of homes the authority has agreed will be delivered in each housing market
area over the periods of the development plan … The target should be reasonable,
should properly reflect the HNDA estimate of housing demand in the market sector,
and should be supported by compelling evidence. …
116. Within the overall [HST], plans should indicate the number of new homes to
be built over the plan period. This figure should be increased by a margin of 10 to
20% to establish the [HLR], in order to ensure that a generous supply of land for
housing is provided. …
117. The [HLR] can be met from a number of sources, most notably sites from the
established supply which are effective or expected to become effective in the plan
period, sites with planning permission, proposed new land allocations, and in some
cases a proportion of windfall development. …
118. [SDPs] should set out the [HST] and the [HLR] for the plan area, each local
authority area, and each functional housing market area. They should also state the
amount and broad locations of land which should be allocated in [LDPs] to meet the
[HLR] up to year 12 from the expected year of plan approval, making sure that the
requirement for each housing market area is met in full…
119. [LDPs] in city regions should allocate a range of sites which are effective or
expected to become effective in the plan period to meet the [HLR] of the [SDP] up to
year 10 from the expected year of adoption. …”.
[9] SPP provides (para 125) a regime where, if there is a shortage in the 5-year effective
HLS, development plan policies for the supply of housing land will not be considered up-to-
Page 6 ⇓
6
date. In that event (paras 32-34), the presumption in favour of development that contributes
to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration.
The Strategic Development Plan
[10] The SDP states (para 6.23) that the HLR will “enable ambitious yet realistic levels of
growth to be planned for across the city region”. The SDP’s aim (para 6.27) is “to meet the
need and demand for housing in full by setting a policy context that provides for a generous
supply of land and which assists in enhancing the delivery of new housing”. Policy 7 states
that there should be a “focus on the existing [HLS] and public sector estate whilst bringing
forward new opportunities in accordance with Policy 8”. The HNDA (para 6.38) estimated
the number of additional homes which are required. It provided (para 6.39) an evidence
base for identifying housing requirements, including the strategic HLR. It enabled LDPs to
be based on a common understanding of existing and future demand. The time periods
were (para 6.41) the years to 2024 and 2029; that is to years 7 and 12 from the SDP’s approval
date of 2017. The housing estimates for years 7 and 12 provided the context for establishing
the HLR for the 5 and 10 year periods. The estimates are divided (para 6.45) into the private
and social sectors. The social sector is based on local authority boundaries. The private
sector is based on a HMA framework.
[11] The HLR was arrived at (para 6.47) by taking, and adjusting (para 6.53), the HNDA
figures in order to set HSTs for the social and private sectors (para 6.48). An all tenure HST
(para 6.60) recognised the role of the private sector in providing affordable housing. In
terms of SPP, a generosity element (para 6.61) requires to be added to the HST to establish
the HLR. In order to provide flexibility, with a view to supporting the housebuilding
industry and to provide for long term growth, a generosity level of 15% was applied to the
Page 7 ⇓
7
HST (para 6.62) to reach the HLR. The HLR can be met (para 6.65) from a number of
sources, but mostly from sites in the established land supply which are considered to be
effective over the plan period. The private sector HLR is to be met at HMA and HSMA
levels.
[12] LDPs are (para 6.66) to:
“ensure, in accordance with Policy 8 and informed by up to date {HLS] data, that
sufficient housing land is allocated which is effective… such as to meet the [HLR] for
each [HSMA] and each Local Authority as set out in Schedules 8, 9 and 10…”.
[13] Policy 8 provides:
“In order to provide a generous supply of land for housing and assist in the delivery
of the [HSTs]…, Local Authorities should:
make provisions in [LDPs] for the all tenure [HLR] by Local Authority set out
in Schedule 8, for the Private [HLR] by [HSMA] set out in Schedule 9 and for the
Private [HLR] by Local Authority set out in Schedule 10;
allocate a range of sites which are effective or expected to become effective in
the plan periods to meet the [HLR], for each [HSMA] and for each Local Authority,
of the SDP up to year 10 from the expected year of adoption;
provide for a minimum of 5 years effective land supply at all times for each
[HSMA] and for each Local Authority; and,
undertake annual monitoring of completions and land supply through
[HLA].
Local Authorities should take steps to remedy any shortfalls in the five-year
supply of effective housing land through the granting of planning permission for
housing developments, on greenfield or brownfield sites, subject to satisfying
each of the following criteria: …”.
[14] Schedule 6 of the SDP designated the HSTs and the HLRs for social and private
housing over three time periods. Schedules 7 and 8 provided figures for the all tenure HST
and resultant HLR for the local authority. They are as follows:
Page 8 ⇓
8
2012–2024
2024–2029
2012–2029
Social Private Total Social Private Total Social Private Total
HST 1,100 2,050 3,150 400
850 1,250 1,500 2,900 4,400
HLR 1,270 2,360 3,630 460
980 1,440 1,730 3,340 5,070
The SDP continued (para 6.67) by emphasising that, for the purposes of strategic planning, it
was essential to consider the longer term supply of land available to meet housing need and
demand for these planning periods.
The Proposed Local Development Plan and the Housing Land Technical Report 2018
[15] On 30 April 2018, the respondents’ proposed LDP was published alongside a Housing
Land Technical Report 2018, which was intended to demonstrate that the SDP’s HLR would be
met. The LDP identified land for 528 new private houses at 7 locations specified in
Schedule 3. These were all in Greenock, Gourock or Port Glasgow. A total of 5,576 sites
(including those already in Schedule 3) were identified in Schedule 4. These can be
summarised as follows for the Inverclyde HMA:
Port Glasgow
Greenock
Gourock
Inverkip &
Wemyss Bay
Inverclyde total
Private
419
2209
335
723
3686
Affordable
386
873
18
0
1277
Mixed
140
360
0
0
500
All Tenure
945
3442
353
723
5463
A further 113 private houses were included for Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village, which
made up the Renfrewshire HSMA, to produce the total for Inverclyde of 5,576. Policy 18
provided that new housing development on the Schedule 4 sites would be supported in
principle.
Page 9 ⇓
9
[16] The mixed sites were, as the name suggests, expected to have a mix of private and
affordable housing. They were in Port Glasgow (R3 - 140 units at Woodhall) and Greenock
(R24 - 100 at Gareloch Road, R36 – 60 at Union Street and R47 -200 at Ravenscraig Hospital).
The appendices to the Technical Report had allocated the mix as follows: Woodhall, private
122 – affordable 18; Gareloch Road 25 -75; Union Street 20 -40; and Ravenscraig Hospital 50 –
150.
[17] Policy 17 provided that the respondents would carry out an annual audit in order to
ensure a 5-year effective housing land supply. If additional land were required, they would
consider individual proposals.
[18] The Technical Report recorded that, although the HLR had been set out in the SDP, it
had to be adjusted to match the period covered by the LDP. There were two methods of
doing this; an annualised and a compound method. The compound approach took the HST
across the relevant period (2012-24) and deducted the houses which had already been
completed. If past completions had been lower than required to meet the HSTs, the
deficiency would have to be made up in the remaining years. The results of this approach
were set out in Table 6, which can be summarised as follows:
A HLR 2012-2024
B HST 2012-2024
C Completions 2012-2017
D HST 2017-2024 (B - C)
E Adjusted HLR 2017-2024
(D + 15%)
Inverclyde
HMA Private
2,220
1,930
516
1,414
1,626
Renfrewshire
HSMA Private
140
120
3
117
135
Inverclyde
Affordable
1,270
1,100
269
831
956
Inverclyde
All Tenure
3,630
3,150
788
2,362
2,717
Page 10 ⇓
10
[19] The annualised method divided the HLR into an annual figure and calculated a 5-
year (2019-2024) amount. It did not take account of previous completions. The results of
this approach were in Table 7:
A HLR 2012-2024
B Annual HLR (A ÷ 12)
C HLR 2019-2024 (B x 5)
Inverclyde
HMA Private
2,220
185
925
Renfrewshire
HSMA Private
140
12
60
Inverclyde
Affordable
1,270
106
530
Inverclyde
All tenure
3,630
303
1,515
[20] Appendix 1 to the Technical Report listed the sites which had been identified in the
proposed LDP. These were based on the 2017 HLA, but had been amended to take account
of a number of different factors. Tables 9 and 10 provided a comparison of the HLS with the
HLR for the first LDP period using, respectively, the compound and annualised methods:
Table 9 – Compound
Approach 2017-24
A Adjusted HLR (Table 6)
B Adjusted Effective HLS
(Appdx 1)
C Comparison
Inverclyde
HMA Private
1,626
1,413
Renfrewshire
HSMA Private
135
110
Inverclyde
Affordable
956
1,421
-213
-25
465
Inverclyde
All tenure
2,717
2,944
227
Thus, when the adjusted HLRs for the Inverclyde and Renfrewshire Market and Sub-Market
Areas were compared with the land identified for private housing by the proposed LDP, the
full HLR for the period, that is the private sectors, was not met.
Table 10 – Annualised
Approach 2019-24
A HLR 2019-2024 (Table 7)
B Adjusted Effective HLS
2019-2024 (App 1, 5 ÷ 7
of 2017-2024 figure)
C Comparison
Inverclyde
HMA Private
925
1,009
Renfrewshire
HSMA Private
60
79
84
19
Inverclyde
Affordable
530
1,015
485
Inverclyde
All tenure
1,515
2,103
588
Page 11 ⇓
11
For the annualised calculation, only the 5-year period, from 2019 to 2024, was compared. A
5 ÷ 7 adjustment was made to the effective HLS for the LDP period. Table 10 showed that,
using that methodology, the HLR in the Inverclyde HMA and the Renfrewshire and HSMA
would be met.
[21] Table 11 carried out a comparison of the HLR with the proposed HLS for 2024 to
2029 as follows:
A HLR 2024-2029 (Table 8)
B Adjusted Effective HLS
post 2024 (Appendix 1)
C Comparison
Inverclyde
HMA Private
920
2,490
Renfrewshire
HSMA Private
60
3
1,570
- 57
Inverclyde
Affordable
460
139
- 321
Inverclyde
All tenure
1,440
2,632
1,192
[22] The Technical Report concluded:
“Inverclyde [HMA] private sector – Table 9, based on the compound approach
indicates that insufficient effective land has been identified to meet the [HLR], whilst
Table 10 based on the annualised approach indicates that the [HLR] can be met (in
both instances to 2024).”
[23] The Housing Land Audit 2018 showed 542 private home completions in Inverclyde
since 2012, of which only 3 were in the Renfrewshire HSMA. It identified the effective
future HLS for Inverclyde to 2024 at 1,588 for private housing and 1,216 for social (2,804 all
tenure). Some 107 of the 1,588 were in the Renfrewshire HSMA.
The Main Issues Report
[24] The appellants made representations which addressed whether the LDP met the
SDP’s HLR. The LDP had to set out how the strategic (all tenure) HST of 4,400 new homes
in the period from 2012 to 2029 (the schedule 7 figure) would be met. The generosity margin
Page 12 ⇓
12
had to be applied to ensure enough land was available to meet the HST. The HLR that had
to be met was 5,070 between 2012 and 2029 (the schedule 8 figure).
[25] The reporter requested further information from the respondents in respect of the
HLR in the part of Inverclyde (principally Kilmacolm and Quarriers Village), which was
within the Renfrewshire HSMA. This HSMA extended across the boundaries of three local
planning authorities; the whole of Renfrewshire, part of East Renfrewshire and part of
Inverclyde. The rest of Inverclyde was defined as a separate, and self-contained, HMA. The
respondents referred to the two different methodologies, both of which had been used in the
Technical Report. HfS’s response to the request had included a Housing Land Supply
Statement which had been prepared by Geddes Consulting.
[26] The Statement argued (para 3.4) that there was clear guidance in the SDP on how the
HLR was to be met. In the preparation of the SDP, each local authority’s HLA (for 2013) had
been used to estimate the future sources of housing land to meet the HLR. In terms of the
SDP, it was for LDPs to ensure, in accordance with Policy 8 and informed by up to date HLS
data, that sufficient effective housing land was allocated to meet the HLR for each HMA and
HSMA together with each Local Authority area. Completions had to be included in
assessing whether or not the HLR was met. The correct approach was to take the HLR in the
SDP and deduct both the completions and the existing land supply to reach a surplus or
shortfall.
[27] The Statement made reference to the terms of the 2018 HLA, which had not been
available at the beginning of the process. There were 890 completions, including 542 in the
private sector, of which 3 were in the Renfrewshire HSMA. The predicted effective HLS was
1,588 private, of which 107 was in the HSMA, and 1,216 social. There were 877 disputed
Page 13 ⇓
13
private houses but 245 additions in the 2018 HLA. This meant that the private sector
programme was 956, of which 65 would be in the HSMA. The HLA contained no
programming beyond 2024. Geddes Consulting reasoned that the all tenancy shortfall could
be calculated as follows:
HLR (SDP)
Completions (HLA 2018)
Windfall allowance (HLA 2018)
HLS (HLA 2018)
Shortfall
2012-2024
3,630
890
90
1,870
-780
2024-2029
1,440
0
150
746
-544
2012-2029
5,070
890
240
2,616
-1,324
The private sector shortfall figures were -1,030 and -343 over the two periods and -1,373 in
total, with the Renfrewshire HSMA components being minus figures of 72, 60 and 132.
Examination Report
[28] The Examination Report was submitted to the respondents on 3 April 2019. Issue 5:
Housing Land Supply, Housing Supply Targets and Housing Land Requirement contains a
summary of the unresolved issues and the reporters’ response to them. Designating some
sites as being of mixed tenure prevented the LDP from demonstrating that the separate
HSTs and HLRs would be delivered, either for the affordable or the private sectors in the
Inverclyde HMA (para 19). This approach was “not inappropriate” (para 21). The
experience of the respondents (para 20) had been that sites which had been designated for
the private sector were often bought by social landlords and developed as affordable
housing. The figures still demonstrated that the more important all tenure HLR was being
met. The respondents’ Table 5 showed that the private HLR for the Inverclyde part of the
Page 14 ⇓
14
Renfrewshire HSMA could be derived by comparing Schedules 8 and 9 of the SDP as
follows:
Inverclyde Area (a)
Inverclyde HMA (b)
Renfrewshire HSMA ((a)-(b))
Private HLR by HMA
2012-2024
2024-2029
2,360
980
2,220
920
140
60
2012-2029
3,340
3,140
200
[29] The reporter agreed (para 37) that it was appropriate to take account of the house
completions. These totalled 788 out of the 4,400 all-tenure HST for Inverclyde. The 15%
generosity allowance did not need to be applied to that element of the HST in order to
secure their delivery. On this basis (para 38), the LDP required only to provide land that
was sufficient to enable some 3,612 more houses to be completed between 2017 and 2029.
The updated HLR was 4,154 (3,612 + 15%). The 2017 HLA projected 708 completions to 2022
and identified sites with a further potential for over 4,000 houses. On that basis, the reporter
found (paras 46-48) that:
“… the scale and nature of the land being made available through this [LDP] is
sufficient to meet the council’s ambitions, which are embodied in the all tenure [HST]
and the [HLR] for the whole of Inverclyde that are set out in [the SDP] for the period
2012 to 2029...
…this plan is generally consistent with the [SDP’s] requirements. It provides
sufficient housing land to meet Inverclyde’s all-tenure [HLR] for 2012-2029 set out in
[SDP]; … and is also sufficient to enable the all-tenure [HST] for the whole of
Inverclyde to be met by 2029 …
… there is no overall deficiency in the provision of housing land in the proposed
plan across the whole of Inverclyde which might, for that reason, separately justify
releasing additional greenfield land at Kilmacolm or Quarriers Village for private
sector house-building on sites that have not previously been allocated for
development…”.
Page 15 ⇓
15
[30] The reporter took the view (para 53) that a decision on the most appropriate
methodology could not be resolved through the examination of an individual LDP, albeit
that the role of the LDP was to ensure that sufficient sites are available during the plan
period to enable the HLR to be met. The LDP provided for a five years’ effective supply
through Policy 17, which set out the means of addressing any identified shortfall. SPP
(para 123) confirmed that the HLA was the tool to be used. There ought to be a specific
reference to Policy 17 in the LDP to confirm that it was a statutory requirement for it to be
consistent with the SDP. The policy should also confirm that the sites listed in Schedules 3
and 4 are to be allocated to meet the SDP’s HLR and that proposals for housing
development on these sites will be supported in principle. It was not the role of the LDP to
seek to re-interpret the HNDA which informed the SDP nor was it appropriate for the
respondents to restrict the time horizon of the housing land allocations to 2024. That would
be contrary to Policy 8 of the SDP and SPP (para 119) whereby LDPs are required to allocate
effective sites to meet the SDP’s HLR up to year 10 from the expected year of adoption.
[31] The reporters recommended as follows:
1. Modify Policy 17, by adding …: “In order to enable [the SDP’s] all-tenure
[HST] … of 4,400 house completions between 2012 and 2029, to be delivered,
proposals for housing development on the sites listed …will be supported in
principle…
2. Modify paragraph 7.2 by replacing the first three sentences with: “The [SDP]
has established that the all-tenure [HST] … for the period from 2012 to 2029 is for a
total of 4,400 house completions. By adding a 15% ‘generosity allowance’, it also
confirmed that an all-tenure [HLR] for 5,070 houses should apply. This is intended to
provide sufficient sites to enable that level of completions to be delivered… In the
five years to 2017, some 788 house completions have already been achieved. That
leaves this plan being required to provide sufficient land to enable a further 3,612
new homes to be completed by 2029, and to allocate land with capacity for around
4,150 house (sic) (calculated by adding the 15% ‘generosity allowance’). This plan is
consistent with these requirements of [the SDP], as it will support housing
Page 16 ⇓
16
development on each of the sites listed in Schedules 3 and 4, and as shown on the
proposals map. These sites have a total capacity for some 6,100 houses.”
[32] On the basis of the reporter’s view, the respondents determined that there was no
overall deficiency which might justify releasing greenfield land at Kilmacolm and Quarriers
Village. The respondents accepted the Examination Report and the modifications, subject to
one correction. The figure 6,100 in modification 2 should have been 5,576 (sic). The reporter
had wrongly assumed that the 528 houses in schedule 3 were not included in the 5,576 total
in schedule 4.
Submissions
Appellants
[33] The appellants submitted, first (ground of appeal 1), that the reporter failed to
address unresolved issues. He recognised that there were different methodologies with
which to calculate whether there was an effective 5-year HLS in terms of SPP (para 110) and
the SDP’s Policy 8 and whether the 2024 requirements of the SDP, as also set out in Policy 8,
were likely to be met. He did not reach a conclusion on which methodology to follow. He
did not state whether the SDP requirements for house building to 2024 would be met. He
failed to set out a proper basis for his conclusion that the LDP provided for a minimum of 5-
years effective HLS at all times. This was central to the assessment of whether the LDP was
consistent with the SDP and SPP para 119. If there was no effective 5-year HLS, LDP
policies for housing would not be considered up-to-date (SPP para 125). Assessing whether
there was a 5-year HLS was a key tool in determining whether the HLR and HST were likely
to be met.
Page 17 ⇓
17
[34] Although a decision on methodology was one of planning judgment, no such
decision had been made. A reporter required to address the key issues (Gladman
Developments v Scottish Ministers (supra) at para 44; Scottish House Builders Association v
Secretary of State for Scotland 1995 SCLR 1039 at 1042). The view that the issue could not be
resolved in an LDP planning process was at odds with the decisions of other reporters
(Gladman Developments v Scottish Ministers (supra) at para [28]). The use of the words
“planning judgment” did not entitle a decision maker to make fundamental mistakes on
paras 33-36. 42-44). The reporter was not entitled to rewrite the SDP (Tesco Stores v Dundee
[35] HfS had identified that the two approaches, which had been adopted by the
respondents in the Technical Report, were contrary to SDP Policy 8. If the correct
methodology had been followed, the proposed LDP had not identified sufficient effective
land to meet the HLR. The reporter required to reach a conclusion on which methodology
should be used. Policy 8 required the LDP to provide a minimum 5-year effective HLS at all
times. Policy 17 of the LDP did not ensure that minimum was met. It provided a remedy if
there was no 5-year effective supply and the LDP did not provide sufficient land. The
reporter erred in his conclusion to the contrary. If there was a shortfall in the HLS, the
policy would be deemed out of date.
[36] Using the undisputed figures in the 2017 HLA, the programmed output to 2024 was
2,155. The completions which were predicted on new sites in the LDP to 2024 were 474, thus
totalling 2,629 in the years 2017-2024. This produced an effective 5-year supply of 1,878
(2629 x (5 ÷ 7)). Applying the 5 ÷ 7 fraction to the respondents’ reduced HLR of 2,717,
Page 18 ⇓
18
produced 1,941. This produced a shortfall even if the appellants’ arguments on site
effectiveness, the reduction of the HLR and the 2018 HLA were rejected.
[37] Secondly (ground 2), the reporter misinterpreted the SDP and the role of the
generosity allowance in calculating the SDP’s HLRs and HLTs. He effectively recalculated
the HLR. His approach to the generosity allowance was not consistent with the SDP. He
confused the issues of supply and demand. The HLR identified the total number of houses
that needed to be planned for, if the HST was to be achieved. The figures for actual and
future completions were supply figures. They showed whether it was likely that the HLR
and HST would be met. In concluding that the 15% generosity allowance did not need to be
applied to the existing completions, the reporter displayed a fundamental misunderstanding
of the issue and the SDP. Such an approach effectively reduced the HLR.
[38] The number of actual completions (788) was considerably below the number which
was needed to keep pace with the HSTs and HLRs. The all tenure HST figure for 2012-2024
was 3,150. Keeping pace with the HST would have involved 1,312 completions ((3,150 ÷ 12) x
5). The HLR equivalent figures were 3,630 and 1,512. The completions were respectively
60% and 52% of what was needed. Far from showing that the HSTs and HLRs were likely to
be met, the figures showed that the current land supply was not providing for the
completions which were needed (see Hopkins Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government [2017] 1 WLR 1865 at para 78). If the HLR figure of 3,630 was taken, and
the completions were subtracted from it to reach 2,842, the annual HLR for the period to
2024 was 406 (2,842 ÷ 7). The HLS was 370 per annum. This was calculated by taking the
2,944 all tenure adjusted HLS figure in Table 9. Account had to be taken of the appellants’
Page 19 ⇓
19
contentions in relation to disputed sites which contained 315 homes. When they were
deducted, an HLS figure of 370 ((2904 – 315) ÷ 7) was reached.
[39] Thirdly (ground 3), the reporter found that it was not possible to conclude that the
LDP was compliant with the SDP for each housing tenure. Accordingly, he did not reach a
conclusion on whether the LDP had made provision for the private sector HLR. This was an
unresolved issue which was central to whether the LDP was consistent with the SDP. HfS
had set out their conclusions on whether the private HLR would be met. Schedule 4 of the
LDP identified only four sites under the tenure “Mixed”. The 2018 HLA had already
identified these sites, their capacity and their indicative tenure. Had the reporter properly
considered the HLA and the evidence, he would have had a better understanding of the
likely indicative tenures. Policy 8 of the SDP required local authorities to make provision in
LDPs for the all-tenure HLR by HMA and HSMA, as set out in Schedule 9, and for the
private HLR by local authority area, as set out in Schedule 10. The reporter did not set out a
proper basis for concluding that the plan was consistent with the SDP.
[40] The reporter had rejected or ignored the evidence on the mixed tenure sites R3, R24,
R36 and R47 in the Technical report. Table 9 showed that there were insufficient sites to
meet the HLR to 2024. Table 11 indicated that there was insufficient land to meet the 2029
HLR. The appendix to Table 11 set out the respondents’ position on the likely tenures of the
mixed sites. There was no explanation on why this information was not used.
[41] Fourthly (ground 4), the reporter identified the requirement of the SDP to consider
housing need and demand for the periods 2012 to 2024 and 2024 to 2029. There had been
detailed submissions and evidence on the housing need and demand for these two periods.
The reporter did not set out any conclusions on this issue and the extent to which the LDP
Page 20 ⇓
20
had allocated land to achieve the 2017 to 2024 and 2024 to 2029 figures for private and all
tenure housing. He made no finding on whether the private sector HLR would be met. He
could not do so in the absence of a choice on methodology. He had misapplied the
generosity allowance. He had miscalculated the total site capacity. In terms of Policy 8,
LDPs had to indicate that sufficient land was available for the HLR for each HMA and each
HSMA.
[42] Fifthly (ground 5), through HfS, the appellants had produced evidence and
advanced arguments on the 2018 HLA. The Examination Report did not summarise them or
address the relevance of the 2018 HLA. The SDP identified that LDPs should be informed
by up to date HLS data. When reading the Examination Report, the informed reader would
be left in real doubt about what regard, if any, the reporter had to the 2018 HLA and the
submissions on it. The reporter failed to set out proper, adequate or intelligible reasons for
taking no account of the submissions or the 2018 HLA.
[43] Sixthly (ground 6), the Reporter concluded that the LDP was generally consistent
with the SDP. This conclusion was flawed. It formed the basis for the recommendations
and the rejection of the modifications proposed by HfS and the appellants. The LDP ought
to be quashed in its entirety since the housing policies affected the others (Tesco Stores v
Dundee City Council (supra) at para 22). The housing element was a major part of the LDP’s
land use planning. Alternatively, chapter 7.0 Our Homes and Communities should be
quashed.
[44] The respondents regarded their powers to reject the reporter’s conclusions as limited,
but they did correct the obvious error in relation to the Inverclyde total HLS figure. It was
unclear whether the respondents had considered whether this error of fact had influenced
Page 21 ⇓
21
the reporter’s conclusions. Flaws in a reporter’s conclusions, including an absence of
reasoning, permitted a challenge to the adoption of an LDP (Eadie Cairns v Fife Council
[2013] CSIH 109 at para [40], citing Wordie Property Co v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984 SLT 345
at 349).
Interested Parties
[45] The interested parties submitted that there was no basis upon which the respondents
could refuse to make the recommended modifications to the LDP. There was no exercise of
discretion or judgment in section 19(10) of the 1997 Act (cf Retail Property Holdings v Scottish
Ministers [2015] CSIH 69). It was not open to the respondents to refuse to accept the
recommendations because they differed from the reporter on a matter of planning judgment
(Planning Circular 6/2013 (supra) paras 92-94). The scope for altering the reporter’s
recommendations was limited (1997 Act s 19(10) and 2009 Regs, reg 2; Tesco Stores v Aberdeen
City Council 2013 SCLR 71). Even if there had been a failure to comply with the Act or the
2008 Regulations, no substantial prejudice to the appellants had been identified. The LDP
was not outwith the powers of the Act. The 2008 Regulations confined (reg 21(2)) the
examination to the unresolved representations (Planning Circular 6/2013 (supra) paras 116-
117). It was not the function of the court to re-examine the factual conclusions drawn by the
reporter. Matters of planning judgment were within the exclusive province of the reporter
at 44).
[46] On ground 1, the reporter had addressed the issue of the appropriate methodology.
He had accepted that past completions ought to be taken into account. He had concluded
that the examination of an LDP was not an appropriate forum in which to resolve the issue
Page 22 ⇓
22
of methodology. The role of the LDP was to ensure that sufficient sites were allocated and
that these would be sufficient to enable the HLR to be met. The reporter determined that the
LDP did this. The compound method had been adopted. The reporter held that, if a
shortfall arose, it would be addressed in the context of LDP Policy 17. There was no error
disclosed in the conclusion reached. It was an appropriate exercise of planning judgment.
[47] The reporter had preferred the evidence of the respondents on the disputed sites and
the HLS as set out in the Technical Report. The sites were set out in the LDP. The HST was
4,400 from which completions of 788 were to be deducted before the generosity allowance
was applied to produce the HLR of 4,154. The reporter held that the sites identified on the
plan had a total capacity of 6,104 (which should have been 5,651), to which 75 houses would
be added once the modifications, to delete 40 houses at Papermill Road, Greenock, and to
add 115 houses at Arran Avenue, Port Glasgow, were implemented. The Technical Report
had updated the HLA of 2017 by including some sites and reprogramming others. On the
basis of the evidence, the reporter was able to conclude that the 5-year all tenancy HLS was
sufficient to meet the HLR. The Technical Report predicted 2,944 (plus 75) houses for the
period 2017 – 2024 and 2,632 for the post 2024 period. The Technical Report and the
Examination Report together identified an annual HLS for 2017-2024 of 431 homes per
annum. The HLR for 2019-2024 was 388. That figure was calculated by taking the HST of
3,159, deducting the completions and adding the generosity allowance. The Technical
Report had concluded that there was sufficient to provide for the all tenure adjusted HLR.
Policy 17 would deal with any shortfall if it arose. There was no failure on the part of the
reporter.
Page 23 ⇓
23
[48] On ground 2, there was nothing unreasonable about the reporter’s approach to the
generosity allowance (para 116). The respondents’ area had an all-tenure HLR for the
period 2012-2029 of 5,070 (rounded up). This incorporated a generosity margin of 15% on
the HST of 4,400 in schedule 7. There had been 788 homes completed, so these were deleted
from the 4,400 figure and the 15% generosity was applied to the balance. Retrospectively
applying a generosity margin to ensure delivery to homes that had been delivered was not
rational.
[49] On ground 3, the reporter found the approach to the HMAs in the LDP to be broadly
consistent with that in the SDP. He recognised that designating the nature of some sites as
“mixed tenure” prevented the LDP from demonstrating that the particular HSTs and HLRs
would be delivered. He went on to find that in the circumstances it was not inappropriate
for the LDP to identify some sites as mixed tenure. This enabled the LDP to demonstrate
compliance with the more important all tenure HLR. For the private sector, the SDP
identified almost the whole of Inverclyde as a separate HMA and set out both an HST and
an HLR for this.
[50] On ground 4, the HLR for the LDP period, being up to 10 years from the anticipated
year of adoption (SPP para 119), was for 2019-2029. The SDP set out the HLR for 2012-2024,
2024- 2029 and 2012-2029. Schedules 8, 9 and 10 set out the HLR for 2012 to 2029. The SDP
did not require the LDP to disaggregate Schedules 8, 9 and 10 into two periods. The LDP
referred to the whole of the period 2012- 2029. The reporter had correctly held that it was
not for the respondents to reinterpret the HNDA which had informed the SDP or to restrict
the time horizon to 2024. The requirement of SPP was to meet the HLR for the 10 year
period.
Page 24 ⇓
24
[51] On ground 5, there was no substantial doubt about what the reporter took into
account and what the reasons for his conclusions were. There had been no basis for the
submission of additional material in the course of an examination, unless it was requested
by the reporter (2008 Regulations, reg 22; Eadie Cairns v Fife Council (supra)). There were
good reasons for this (Planning Circular 6/2013 paras 112 – 114). Lengthy examinations
were to be avoided. The 2018 HLA had not been final at the time when the LDP was
submitted for examination. It had not been requested by the reporter, although it had been
submitted following upon his request for information on the proper interpretation of the
SDP relative to the Renfrewshire HSMA. The reporter took account of the material which
was submitted in response to the request but only in so far as it related to that request. The
reporter had said that explicitly in an email dated 20 February 2019 to those who had
responded to the request.
[52] When considering the adequacy of the reasons, regard had to be made to their
Developments v Dumfries and Galloway Council [2015] CSOH 129). The purpose of the
examination was to resolve the unresolved issues and to report to the respondents so that
they could proceed with any proposed modifications and adopt the plan. The report is
addressed to the respondents who had provided the material for the reporter. The
respondents were familiar with this material.
[53] On ground 6, the reporter concluded that the LDP was consistent with the SDP. He
was entitled to reach that conclusion. The appellants had failed to specify how they are
substantially prejudiced (Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry [1991] 1 WLR 153).
Page 25 ⇓
25
Respondents
[54] The respondents focused on the limited basis upon which they could refuse to make
the modifications to the LDP which had been recommended by the reporter (1997 Act s
19(10) and (11); 2009 Regulations reg 2). They could not refuse on the basis that they
disagreed with the reporter’s planning judgment (Planning Circular 6/2013, paras 92-94;
Tesco Stores v Aberdeen City Council (supra) at 71; Eadie Cairns v Fife Council (supra) at paras
[38] – [44]).
[55] The reporter had not erred in his approach to methodology, maintenance of the 5-
year HLS, the generosity allowance, compliance with the SDP, the HLR or the 2018 HLA.
On each subject, he gave clear and rational explanations. It was not for the court to review
matters of planning judgment (City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland
Bolton Metropolitan DC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) 71 P&CR 309 at 313).
Any quashing of the LDP should be limited to the matters challenged (Tesco Stores v
Aberdeen City Council (supra) at para [33] approving Hallam Land Management v City of
[56] The respondents essentially adopted the submissions of the interested parties on the
specific grounds of appeal.
Decision
[57] The scheme in Scottish Planning Policy is straightforward. The Strategic
Development Plan identifies the Housing Land Requirement. The all tenure HLR for
Inverclyde set out in schedule 8 produces a total of 5,070 for the period to 2012 - 2029 (3,630
Page 26 ⇓
26
2012 to 2024). This is broken down into private sector units of 3,340 (2,360) and social or
affordable ones of 1,730 (1,270). The private sector HLR by housing sub-market area was
contained in schedule 9. This shows 3,140 for the period 2012 - 2029 (2,220 2012 - 2024). The
private sector HLR by local authority was set out in schedule 10 with the figures for
Inverclyde being 3,340 (2,360).
[58] The function of the Local Development Plan is (SPP para 119) to allocate sufficient
effective sites to meet the HLR. That requires the LDP to identify sites in respect of each
HLR (all tenure, private and social). The SDP divides the HLR figures into two time periods.
LDPs require to follow that scheme by allocating sites which are capable of meeting the HLR
in each period. The purpose of doing so stems from the important regime in SPP (paras 110
and 125) whereby the planning system must provide an effective 5-year housing land
supply. This is what is provided for in SDP Policy 8. A central question for the reporter to
answer was whether the LDP complied with SPP and the SDP by allocating sufficient sites
to achieve the 5-year HLS.
[59] The LDP identified 5,576 houses at sites referred to in schedule 4, with 3,686 (plus
113) of these in the private sector and 500 “mixed”. In the Technical report, 217 of the mixed
sites were attributed to the private sector. The all tenure Inverclyde HLR of 3,630 for 2012-
2024 was broken down into, inter alia, figures for the private Inverclyde HMA and the
Renfrewshire HSMA (Table 6 supra) once completions had been deducted. This produced a
HLR for respectively the Inverclyde HMA and the Renfrewshire HSMA of 1,626 and 135.
On the compound approach, this resulted in a shortage in the effective HLS of, respectively,
213 and 25 for the period to 2024. If correct, the LDP would not accord with the SDP or SPP.
Page 27 ⇓
27
The Technical Report required to use the annualised approach to demonstrate that the HLR
was being met.
[60] In those circumstances, the reporter had to determine which methodology to use.
Otherwise a properly reasoned decision on whether the HLR would be met could not be
made. A decision had to be made (see Scottish House Builders Association v Secretary of State
for Scotland 1995 SCLR 1039, Lord Sutherland, delivering the opinion of the court, at 1045).
On the face of things, the compound approach would seem to be the most sensible one.
However, the decision is one of planning judgment and the annualised method may be
capable of being supported. The problem with this Examination Report is that no judgment
was exercised and consequently no decision was made.
[61] The need to take a decision on the methodology and its consequences cannot be
avoided by making reference to Policy 17. It requires the respondents to carry out an HLA
in order to check whether the 5-year HLS is being maintained. If a shortfall were identified,
it directs them to consider individual proposals. If that has occurred the policies are
themselves already out of date. In short Policy 17 is not a safety valve which permits an
LDP to avoid compliance with the SDP so far as achieving the HLR figures as at its date of
adoption. It does not of itself do anything to secure that compliance.
[62] SPP is phrased in a manner whereby it is not the housing supply target which is to be
met but the HLR (see eg SPP paras 118 and 119). The purpose of the generosity allowance is
to provide a margin to ensure that there is a plentiful supply of land (ibid para 116). The
HLR is set by the SDP. It cannot be changed by the LDP in the manner accepted by the
reporter. It cannot be read in a different manner to suit a particular point of view (see Tesco
Page 28 ⇓
28
certain number of houses have been completed does not result in the generosity margin
being removed from the number of these completions, as they feature as part of the HLR.
That would only be legitimate if it was the HST and not the HLR that was to be achieved. It
follows that the reporter’s calculations in that regard are erroneous and do not accord with
SPP or the SDP.
[63] The reporter was bound to consider whether the LDP would achieve the HLR not
only in relation to the time periods but also the different HMAs and HSMAs (SPP para 115).
It was not sufficient, for the LDP to comply with SPP and the SDP, for the reporter to make a
general finding only in relation to the all tenure figure over the whole of the 10 year period.
SPP is clear that each discrete area should be looked at. The LDP is the mechanism whereby
land for each HMA, HSMA and local authority area is provided and is effective to produce a
5-year supply. If only the all tenure figure for the whole of the SDP was considered, the
LDP would fail to comply with SPP and the SDP Policy 8. There is force in the criticism that
the reporter ought to have had regard to the allocations of the mixed tenure sites in the
Technical Report. It is not apparent that he did so. Only by doing so could he have reached
an accurate calculation on whether the HLR for each area was likely to be met.
[64] The reporter had up to date information in the form of the 2018 HLA. The Geddes
Consulting report included detailed submissions on the subject. It produced significant
shortfalls in the all tenancy and private figures for both periods in the SDP and in both the
Inverclyde HMA and the Renfrewshire HSMA. This information was ex facie relevant to the
determination of the critical issue of whether the LDP had demonstrated that the HLR was
going to be met as required by the SDP and SPP. It was a relevant consideration. It may be,
as the interested parties maintain, that the reporter deliberately ignored this information
Page 29 ⇓
29
because it came too late and was produced in response to a request for further information
which it did not answer. The reporter did not say that he had ignored the information or
explain why, if he did, he had done so. If the email of 20 February 2019 was intended to
convey that message, it did not do so. If the reporter intended to ignore what appeared to
be relevant information, it was incumbent upon him to say so and to give some reason for
doing so.
[65] The Examination Report thus contains a number of material errors. It did not resolve
the dispute on methodology which it required to do in order to see whether there was an
effective 5-year supply of housing in terms of Scottish Planning Policy. It illegitimately
altered the Housing Land Requirement which was set in the SDP and immutable. It did not
answer the critical question on whether the private tenure HLR in the different market areas
would, on the basis of the LDP, be likely to be met. It did not explain what account, if any,
was taken of the 2018 Housing Land Audit. For these reasons the Report, and consequently
Chapter 7.0, Our Homes and Communities, of the LDP, upon which it is based, is equally
materially flawed. In terms of section 238(1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning
(Scotland) Act 1997, this results in the LDP being outwith the powers of the Act. The
prejudice to the appellants in not having sufficient sites for house building in terms of SPP
and the SDP is self-evident. The provisions in relation to house building are relatively self
contained. The appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal and to quash only that chapter of
the LDP. That is what the court will do.