Anti-pylon group loses judicial review petition against planned electrical works in Galloway

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSOH 24
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lord Lake

Galloway Without Pylons contended that the Scottish Ministers had failed to give adequate reasons for going against two reporters’ recommendations that the project should not go ahead and accordingly the decision should be reduced. The company seeking permission to install the power lines, SP Transmission plc, lodged answers to the petition as an interested party.

The petition was considered by Lord Lake in the Outer House of the Court of Session, with Crabb, advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Young, advocate, for the Scottish Ministers as respondent, and Armstrong KC and McAndrew, advocate, for SPT as the interested party.

Two principal factors

On 28 August 2020, SPT made five applications to the Scottish Ministers for consent and associated planning permissions for works to install approximately 47 kilometres of overhead power lines from Kendoon to an existing substation at Tongland. After receiving objections to these applications, an inquiry was conducted by two reporters appointed by the respondents, who concluded that permission should be refused in each case. Thereafter, on 14 February 2025, the respondents proceeded to reject the reporters’ recommendations and issue a decision to grant the consents sought.

At paragraphs 128 to 130 of the decision, the respondents noted a policy conflict that arose as a result of the proposed felling of 42.37 hectares of ancient woodland and consequential adverse landscape visual effects, which the reporters considered weighted against the granting of consent. However, the respondents attached greater weight to the benefits of the replacement of end-of-life electricity infrastructure and a need for security of supply in the local area and stated that the proposed development would make a significant contribution to national renewable energy targets.

While the petitioners accepted that it was open to the respondents to reject the recommendations, they contended that inadequate reasons had been given for rejecting the reporters’ conclusions. It was apparent to the reader that the different conclusion resulted from differing weight being given to one of the two principal factors influencing the decision but did not say why a difference had come about.

A subsidiary ground was advanced by the petitioner that the decision failed to engage with the evidence led by and representations made by the petitioner. It is noted that the petitioner was the principal contradictor at the inquiry before the reporters and, as such, these matters have to be considered directly by the Scottish Ministers. A decision could be challenged where there had been a failure to take into account all relevant and material considerations, and the test for whether evidence must be considered directly in the decision is whether it was so obviously material so as to require this.

Not entirely inconsistent

In his decision, Lord Lake began by noting: “The reporters’ decision arose from their conclusion that the greatest weight should be given to the adverse effects of the proposal on the natural environments and, in particular, the loss of designated woodland. It is apparent that in carrying out the balancing exercise, they have reduced the weight attached to the need for the development on the basis that SPT had not explored further less environmentally harmful alternatives to achieving the same end. It is implicit in the view taken of the reporters’ decision that they attach less weight to the issue of the need for the development because they consider that the need might be met by an alternative proposal which would cause less harm.”

In contrast, the judge said of the primary reasons for the respondent’s decision: “In paragraph 113, the Scottish Ministers state when weighing the development against the development plan, the greatest weight should be given to the global climate emergency. They recognise the adverse environmental impact arising from the loss of woodland but state ‘the twin climate and nature crises are in Scottish Ministers’ view best served by securing mitigation of the overall impacts on biodiversity and emissions by imposition of conditions to secure native and other woodland replanting and delivery of a green networks scheme, and significantly reducing carbon emissions, by providing considerable additional network capacity for renewable energy’. This indicates that the two considerations noted are not entirely inconsistent.”

Considering the effect of the respondents’ alternative view, Lord Lake said: “These passages provide the basis for the conclusion that the greatest weight should be attached to the need for the development and why, in the Scottish Ministers’ view, it was not appropriate to reduce the weight accorded to that factor. Although they are not expressly ‘carried forward’ to the part of the decision drawing matters together, it is always a requirement to read the decision as a whole and these earlier passages must be taken into account. The result is that if it is necessary or appropriate to go behind the ministers’ decision to take a view of the weight to be attached to competing considerations, the decision leaves no substantial doubt as to how it was taken.”

He concluded on the alternative ground of challenge: “The Scottish Ministers note that the decision states that it took into account the main deciding factors referred to by the reporters in paragraph 1.33 of the report and that these in turn encapsulated the evidence presented at the inquiry. In their answers, SPT also refer to the report and note that it was not necessary that there be a line-by-line consideration of the evidence for the petitioner. The petitioner does not identify any evidence or representations which it is claimed were overlooked. This makes it impossible to consider whether it was so obviously material that it required to be the subject of express consideration.”

The petition was accordingly refused.