Inner House refuses appeal against listing of disused Glasgow cinema

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSIH 37
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Inner House
• Judge:
  Lord Pentland

The appellants’ ambitions to redevelop the site of a disused Glasgow cinema were brought to a halt after the cinema’s exterior was given category C listed status in 2024. They challenged the decision of a reporter, who found that inconsistencies in Historic Environment Scotland’s approach to the cinema had not precluded it from listing the building.

The appeal was heard by the Lord President, Lady Wise and Lord Ericht, with Alasdair Burnet KC appearing for the appellants and Alexander Sutherland for the respondent.

Listing process could have been handled better

In July 2023, Historic Environment Scotland (HES) received a request for the disused cinema at 124 Balmore Road, Possilpark, Glasgow to be listed under section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. The building, designed by the renowned cinema architect James McKissack, had been in use as a cinema and, latterly, a bingo hall until its closure in the 1990s.

The appellants purchased the building in 2005. After making various repairs and installations to the building in the intervening years, they sought to redevelop the site as a car showroom with flats above. To that end, they obtained a building warrant in December 2023 to demolish the cinema.

Shortly after the building had begun to be demolished, HES officers visited the site. On 12 January 2024, HES issued a decision that, although the cinema was of special architectural or historical interest, it should not be listed “at this time” on account of the advanced nature of the appellants’ development proposals.

Three days later, Glasgow City Council served a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) on the appellants. By consequence of the BPN, the building was to be treated as listed for six months from the date of service, ceasing to be in force at an earlier date only if HES notified the Council that it does not intend to list the building. Following further visits to the site, HES decided in June 2024 to list the exterior of the cinema as category C.

After appeal to the Scottish ministers, a reporter determined in July 2025 that, although “GCC and HES could have handled the listing process better in relation to communication, reasoning and timing”, such shortcomings were not fatal to HES’s decision to list the building, dismissing the appeal accordingly.

The appellant submitted that the reporter had erred in law in his understanding of the applicable legislative scheme. It was “unreasonable and irrational”, they submitted, for Glasgow City Council to serve a BPN less than four weeks after authorising demolition and shortly after HES’s decision not to list the building. Submitting further that it was likewise irrational for the reporter to accept HES’s purported explanation for its change in position between the January and June 2024 listing decisions, the appellants added that the reporter’s decision failed to consider a relevant factor and disproportionately interfered with their rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

No error of law detected

Lord Ericht began his decision by noting: “This appeal raises a short point: was the reporter entitled to hold that the building merited listing. The essence of the appellants’ challenge was that the reporter erred in law because it was not open to Historic Environment Scotland (HES) to change its initial decision not to list the building. This argument ignores the important effect of the building preservation notice (BPN) … The service of the notice meant that HES became subject to a statutory duty to consider whether to list the building. In the present appeal GCC’s decision to issue the BPN is not challenged. The court must proceed on the footing that it was lawfully issued.”

He continued: “In exercising its statutory duty to consider listing, as it was invited to do by GCC by means of the BPN, HSE was not bound to follow its earlier decision not to list; it had to exercise its statutory duty of new. It had to consider its decision in a statutory and regulatory context which differed fundamentally from that which had prevailed at the time of the first decision … While it may appear somewhat peculiar (to those not versed in the intricacies of planning and local government) that GCC had previously issued a building warrant authorising the building’s demolition and then the same council as planning authority issued a BPN, these involved GCC exercising two entirely separate functions … Whereas the building had been in the course of being demolished at the time of the first HES decision, the position was radically different at the time of the second decision because demolition could not lawfully continue.”

Concluding that the court could “detect no error of law in the reporter’s approach to the issues”, Lord Ericht concluded: “The points taken by the appellants under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950 add nothing to the analysis. It is important to reiterate that the listing of a building does not preclude its demolition or development. Any interference with the appellants’ property rights is clearly proportionate and in the public interest. We note also that the reporter took the appellants’ circumstances fully into account.”

The appeal was accordingly refused.