About this case

Case name

Acorn Bioenergy Limited v The Scottish Ministers

Case reference number

XA105/25

Date of hearing

Tuesday 28 July 2026

Time of hearing

10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion

Division

First Division

Judges

• Lord President
• Lord Clark
• Lord Ericht

Agents and Counsel

For the Appellants (Acorn)

• Agents: Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
• Counsel: James Mure, KC

For the Respondents (The Ministers)

• Agents: The Scottish Government Legal Directorate
• Counsel: Stephen Donnelly

Case description

Overview

[1] The appellant submitted a planning application to Moray Council on 28 April 2023 for the development of an anaerobic digestion plant in Longmorn, Elgin. The proposed plant was designed to process the by-products of whisky distilling and agricultural waste to produce biomethane. Biomethane can be used in the gas grid or as a low carbon gas to replace fossil fuels in heating and transport.

[2] By a decision notice dated 25 April 2025, Moray Council refused the planning application. The development was considered to be contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (“NPF4”) and Moray Local Development Plan (“LDP”) 2020.

[3] On 5 June 2025, the appellant challenged the decision of Moray Council by appeal to the Scottish Ministers, the respondents. By decision of 23 October 2025, the reporter refused the appeal, thereby refusing planning permission for the development of the plant.

Reporter’s decision

[4] The reporter considered that the key issue was the principle of the development. He concluded that the net effect of the development would be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The reporter noted that, generally, support is given to projects which contribute to net zero ambitions.

[5] Countryside Around Towns (“CAT”) zones are unique to the Moray area. Development is restricted in CAT zones, of which Elgin is one. The reporter did not consider that the proposal fitted within the exceptions provided for development in the CAT area.

[6] The reporter considered that the proposal did not accord with the overall terms of the development plan (NPF4 and the Moray LDP). He did not consider that any benefits as a result of renewable energy were sufficient to outweigh the conflict that was identified.

Appeal

[7] The appellant challenges the reporter’s decision on four bases. First, that by deciding the case with reference to the principle of the development, the reporter excluded relevant aspects of the development plan. Second, the reporter failed to assess the development with reference to the NPF4 policies which post-dated the Moray LDP policies. Third, the reporter failed to adequately balance the support from the NPF4 with the conflicting policies in the Moray LDP. Fourth, the Moray LDP is incompatible with the NPF4.

[8] The respondents contend that the decision was made by reference to the development plan. It was a matter of planning judgement for the reporter as to determining the issues of the appeal. The respondents also contend that the relevant policies in the Moray LDP did not conflict with the NPF4. If they did, the reporter was bound to have regard to the LDP insofar as it did not conflict with the NPF4.

[9] The First Division will hear this appeal on Thursday 28 July at 10.30am.