Phyllis Stephen reports from Axiom's latest lecture.

If you are short of a few CPD points, or simply short of a few quid to fund your CPD requirement then get yourself along to the Axiom Advocates Third Thursday series of lectures. Whatever they talk about, and however they deliver it, advocates like to do it with quality wine. A lovely Chablis was served after the twin presentation by Heriot Currie QC and Ruth Crawford QC both members of Axiom Advocates at the Mackenzie Building in Old Assembly Close on Thursday evening.

Unfortunately, I missed the cup of coffee which preceded it, otherwise it would have been a bit of a win, win on the catering front.

I started out with a scant knowledge of the subjects under discussion. Heriot Currie, QC talked to the audience, comprising both solicitors and other advocates, about the title and interest to sue in judicial review of planning decisions. This is a fairly dry subject but Heriot kept our attention, and managed to reach those of us at the back despite the lack of a microphone.

In using the various cases through the years commencing with D & J Nicol v Dundee Harbour Trustees in 1915 Mr Currie traced the way that various judges have dealt with the rights of applicants to seek judicial review in some planning cases. We were reminded that a litigant must always “qualify title and interest”. Lord Dunedin decided that D & J Nicol, a shipping company, had interest as rival traders but not title. This has set the framework for a century of case law which followed. This included the Simpson v Edinburgh Corporation case involving the University buildings in George Square. Unfortunately, Rev Ian Simpson was powerless to object as he had no individual right of objection under the 1947 planning legislation and thus we have had to suffer the loss of two sides of the Georgian Square since then.

Mr Currie explained the importance for clients of using the device of a S38 objection at an early stage, so that they may retain their right to challenge planning decisions later in the process, by reference to the case of Bett Properties Limited v Scottish Ministers SC 238.

We then passed to the more complex topic of S 75 agreements and Ruth Crawford posed the question whether such agreements are used by planning authorities as an illicit means of creating a market for planning permissions. Sometimes local authorities are accused of using these to fund infrastructures which they would otherwise find difficult to pay for.

The Scottish Government has already said that planning agreements of this type “have a useful role to play in the development management process where they can be used to overcome obstacles to the grant of planning permission.”

Comparisons were drawn between the English legislation and the Scottish. We were given a fast hurl through the various statutory provisions and alerted to the continuing importance of the Tesco Stores decision 1995 1 WLR 759.

Finally, Miss Crawford confirmed that there should in her view be no suspicion that planning agreements can be used to buy or sell planning permissions. One Council lawyer I spoke to said that this was something which had always worried him so I hope he went home duly comforted!

Axiom Advocates is a stable of high achievers including Richard Keen QC who is the current Dean of Faculty. The next date is 21 May 2009 when the topic is Public Procurement. Remember coffee from 4.15!