Petition of Dr Morag Hannan for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 56 (11 June 2026)

Executive summary

The court considered a judicial review of a planning committee’s grant of conditional permission for a 40 MW battery energy storage facility near Eaglesham. The petitioner argued that a councillor was wrongfully prevented from participating after a discussion with the monitoring officer, Mr Mahon, which was said to have been incomplete and to have amounted to misdirection, lack of natural justice, and partiality. The opinion frames the issue against the Councillors’ Code and the Scottish ethical standards regime, including the possibility of Standards Commission sanctions for breaches.

Key points

• Petitioner: Dr Morag Hannan; Respondent: the planning authority that granted permission on 15 April 2025
• Decision challenged: conditional planning permission for a 40 MW battery energy storage facility with associated infrastructure
• Core complaint: Councillor Edlin did not attend or vote after calls from monitoring officer Mr Mahon about a possible Code issue arising from comments at a community council meeting
• Legal context: Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Councillors’ Code, especially paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5 on fairness, bias, and pre-judgment
• Sanctions angle: the discussion included possible Standards Commission proceedings and sanctions ranging from warning/censure to suspension or disqualification
• The judgment notes Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council as the most similar authority and says the context of the “eyesore” remark was not material to the outcome at this stage

Why it matters

This is relevant to sanctions and public-law risk because it links planning decision-making to the Scottish councillor ethics regime, where alleged breaches can trigger investigation and formal sanctions. For sovereign-risk and geopolitical audiences, it shows how governance and procedural issues around energy infrastructure permitting can be contested through judicial review.

Implications

Compliance teams advising Scottish local authorities or infrastructure developers should treat councillor ethics advice as litigation-sensitive: incomplete or over-cautious guidance can become the basis for procedural challenge to a planning decision. The case also underscores the need for clear records of what advice was given, what options were explained, and whether councillors were left to exercise independent judgment rather than being effectively excluded.