A COUNCIL has been urged to change procedures in its planning process after it lost a court battle over a controversial retail park extension.
North Lanarkshire Council had granted planning permission for a cinema, hotel, and food and retail outlets to be added to Westway Retail Park in Cumbernauld, but the owners of a shopping mall in the town centre challenged the move at the Court of Session.
The court ruled against the council’s decision, claiming its reasons for granting permission were “perverse and inadequate” and “materially flawed” – leaving the local authority facing a substantial legal bill.
The owner of the town’s Antonine Shopping Centre, Bridges Antonine LLP, who sought the judicial review, has now called for changes to the way councillors are briefed on planning matters.
Tom Tyler, investment director at the firm, said: “We were available at the committee room and wanted to be allowed to explain to the councillors where the planning officials had got things wrong.
“We practically begged council officers to allow us to be heard. However, the rules of the council, inexplicably, forbid us from making any comment or statement, even if it is only to clear up factual inaccuracies and glaring errors. That seems absurd and perverse.
“Had we been able to speak and to cross-examine officers, I am confident that councillors would never have reached this ridiculous decision and that neither ourselves nor the council would have ended up in court.”
The retail park, around 1.8 miles from the town centre, currently has a number of home and DIY stores on site.
However Dutch firm Promontoria Holdings applied for planning permission to extend it and develop a number of other leisure and shopping outlets.
The council’s planning committee approved the plans in June last year but Bridges Antonine decided to take the matter further.
They claimed that, as the council had failed to carry out a Retail Impact Assessment, officials “acted unreasonably and perversely in concluding that the Westway proposal could be developed without detriment to Cumbernauld Town Centre”.
Lord Burns agreed and found that the local authority failed to properly assess the impact the proposal would have on Cumbernauld town centre, adding that the centre had problems with “retail contraction and vacancy issues”.
He also found that councillors were not provided with sufficient information to make their decision.
The council could now be forced to pay Bridges Antonine’s legal costs in the case, as well as paying for their own legal fees at the expense of the taxpayer.
This is likely to run to tens of thousands of pounds.
It is understood that the guidelines preventing Bridges Antonine from addressing the planning committee were introduced in 2018.
Mr Tyler added: “We consistently attempted to alert the council about errors in the processes but were thwarted. It is vital that the protocols the council follows in future allow proper communication with the committee to avoid future costly failures.
“Surely it makes sense for North Lanarkshire issues to be heard in North Lanarkshire and not at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.”
A spokeswoman for North Lanarkshire Council said: “The council adheres to Standing Orders in relation to how committees operate. We are reviewing the judgment and will determine our next steps in due course.”
The court judgment came just months after The Herald revealed the council’s plans to re-imagine its town centres by clearing out traditional shopping streets and to make way for homes and “town hubs” – complexes which will incorporate multi-school campuses and other public services.
North Lanarkshire’s chief executive Des Murray told of his plans to draw people back to town centres to live, work and study, not just to shop.
Detailing the decline of town centres and high streets in recent years, he said: “What do we do? Do we step away from it and let it slowly decline.
“Or do we step in to that space and do something fundamental to change its future?”
The new vision is planned for eight town centres - and Cumbernauld is one of them.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel