Galloway without Pylons loses Judicial Review

The Reporters recommended that the application to install approximately 47km of overhead 132kV power lines from Polqanity to an existing substation at Tongland. should be refused but Scottish Ministers disagreed, stating :

“On balance, Scottish Ministers consider the proposed Development is supported by

policy 1 [of NPF4]. The policy does not require proposals to respond equally to both

the climate emergency and the nature crisis. While significant weight must be given

to the environmental impacts of the removal of woodland, and to the conclusion that

those impacts will not be fully mitigated, the resultant emissions and biodiversity

impacts would be offset to an extent over time by planting and other measures

committed to by the Company and secured by conditions. More significant weight is

afforded to the long term environmental benefits associated with an expanded grid,

capable of connecting a significant amount of renewable energy over the lifetime of

the assets. The contribution that the proposed Development would make to tackling

the global climate emergency would in time assist in mitigating the damage to

natural habitats and biodiversity caused by climate change itself”

Galloway without Pylons petition stated:

“the respondents’ decision (Scottish Ministers) fails to provide proper, adequate and intelligible reasons which enable the informed reader to understand why the respondents departed from

the reporters’ recommendations, and why the applications were ultimately decided the way they were.”

The Judge, Lord Lake concluded: 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. It is relevant to stress, however,

that the decision by the ministers differed from that of the reporters as a result of the

weighing of the considerations rather than on what facts were found established. In that the

reporters’ decision was one the petitioner was seeking and the difference between the

reporters’ decision and the ministers’ decision arose in the realm of weighing the various considerations, it is not, in any event, apparent what evidence or submission of the petitioner at the inquiry could be said to have been overlooked. On the bases set out above, neither of the petitioner’s challenges succeeds. I sustain the plea-in-law for the Scottish Ministers and the fourth plea-in-law for SPT and refuse to grant the remedies sought in the petition.  https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/mm1m0bkf/2026csoh24-petition-of-galloway-without-pylons-for-judicial-review.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawQdCsVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeCSwANe1lqQjEXubIw68BfWUp6RpwjA1oEzWa73nT5Psmed9ybnx9oh2DshA_aem_MN2EZpXEG1riGLKRdOVI6g