What can we help you with today?
The Highland Council v The Scottish Ministers
Case: XA98/25
Wednesday, 13 May 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
This is an archive of a livestream. Find out about restrictions on livestreaming.
The Highland Council v The Scottish Ministers and another
XA98/25
Wednesday 13 May 2026
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First division
Overview
[1] Ecocel Energy (Storage) Ltd (“the interested party”) sought planning permission for a battery energy storage system from the appellant. In consideration of the planning permission the appellant prepared a Report of Handling which recommended that planning permission was granted subject to a number of conditions. One such condition was that a Local Employment Scheme was implemented.
[2] The appellant refused planning permission for reasons unrelated to the current appeal. As a consequence, the interested party appealed to the respondent to review the decision. The respondent granted planning permission, also subject to a number of conditions, but not inclusive of the condition to implement a Local Employment Scheme as recommended by the Report on Handling.
Reporter’s Decision
[3] The respondents’ reporter considered that he required to consider the development plan, which includes the fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4) and the Local Development Plan. He considered that one of the main policies for consideration was Policy 11 which was the policy on energy. The policy seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy developments subject to certain qualifications. One such qualification is the requirement to maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities.
[4] The reporter considered that there was no specific guidance on how to measure the maximisation of economic benefits and so it was difficult to assess whether a benefit would be maximised. However, he considered that the evidence presented to him showed a level of socio-economic benefit would arise from the construction of the project.
[5] He did not consider that a planning condition requiring a Local Employment Scheme (as proposed by the council) was required to satisfy policy 11 of the NPF4 as the proposal did not appear to be in conflict with the general intent of the policy in terms of the economic benefits arising from its construction.
[6] The reporter granted the planning permission without any condition that required the implementation of a Local Employment Scheme.
The Appeal
[7] The appellant in this case appeals on two grounds. First, that the planning permission should not have been granted as it did not comply with the Local Development Plan in respect of NPF4. They contend that a planning condition that implements a Local Employment Scheme is necessary for compliance with policy 11 of the NPF, the Local Development Plan and the appellant’s Social Values Charter. They also argue that the reporter’s reasoning is deficient as he has failed to consider whether the proposal maximises relevant benefits, and that he introduced a test by which a condition could only be considered necessary to prevent any incompatibility. It is argued that planning conditions are not limited to those which are necessary to prevent the development from being refused and the reporter failed to give reasons for departing from such policy.
[8] The respondents consider that the requirement of the reporter was to consider, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations, if planning permission should be granted and, if so, subject to what, if any, conditions. In doing so, he had to exercise independent planning judgment. They consider that he was not bound by the condition suggested in the earlier Report of Handling. They consider that the development was not incompatible with policy 11, which was a matter for the reporter in the exercise of his planning judgement. The respondents consider that the reporter’s reasoning was adequate and perfectly intelligible. The informed reader was left in no doubt as to his approach to why he did not implement the proposed condition. He did not consider it necessary.
[9] The interested party, who have entered an appearance, note that the reporter was to consider the appeal of new. He was permitted to grant permission subject to such conditions as he considered were appropriate. The imposition of a planning condition was subject to certain constraints and was a matter for the reporter’s discretion in the exercise of his planning judgement. They contend that the court can only intervene where the reporter has gone beyond the powers conferred upon them in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In respect of the reasons challenge, the interested party also consider the reasons provided by the reporter to be adequate and consider that the reporter’s reasons for not including a planning condition to implement a Local Employment Scheme to be clear.
The First Division will hear this appeal at 10.30am on Wednesday 13th May 2026.