What can we help you with today?
Paul Dixon v Angus Council
Case: XA75/24
Wednesday, 15 October 2025
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
This is an archive of a livestream. Find out about restrictions on livestreaming.
Paul Dixon v Angus Council
XA75/24
Wednesday 15 October 2025
Time of hearing
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First Division
[1] The heritable proprietors of land located in Angus, a short distance from Duntrune House are Duntrune Ltd. Duntrune Ltd made an application for planning permission in respect of a crematorium and associated car parking. The appellant in the current statutory appeal under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is a neighbour of the proposed site.
[2] The proposed crematorium is to be located at the west boundary of the site. It is to be around 544 square metres and 8 metres in height and to have the capacity for 120 people. The canopy-covered entrance elevation is to face eastwards towards the car parking and site entrance. Ancillary rooms such as offices and toilets are to be provided, and the crematorium plant is to be located towards the rear of the building at the west side. A flue serving the crematorium is to terminate at around 9 metres from ground level towards the west end of the roof. A plan of the proposed development is as follows:
[3] On 24 January 2022, the relevant planning authority, Angus Council, refused the planning application. It considered that the development would cause an unsuitable pattern of traffic and was not accessible to transport links. This was contrary to the Angus Local Development Plan. It was also considered that the scale and nature of the proposal was not appropriate for the location due to the lack of accessibility.
[4] On 28 February 2022 Duntrune Ltd submitted an application for review by the Development Management Review Committee (“DMRC”) of Angus Council. They issued a decision notice dated 29 June 2023.
[5] The decision notice upheld Duntrune Ltd’s review application and granted the planning permission subject to conditions. In doing so the DMRC considered that crematoriums required an appropriate and sensitive setting and that it was unlikely that such a development would be near a town centre or edge of centre location. They considered that Angus was generally rural and public transport was likely to pose a difficulty in any alternative location.
[6] The DMRC considered that the high cost of cremation within the surrounding area, the approval of similar types of development, economic benefits, and the fact that there were no technical objections from statutory consultees were factors in favour of upholding the application for review.
[7] By a joint minute lodged on 6 March 2024, the appellant and the respondent agreed that the decision notice of 29 June 2023 was to be reduced due to a failure to give adequate reasons. Both parties sought the application to be remitted for review by a differently constituted DMRC.
[8] The second DMRC decision notice was made on 25 October 2024. In the decision the DMRC provided reasons for considering each policy of the National Planning Framework and the Angus Local Development plan was complied with.
[9] They concluded that the design of the proposal was sensitive to the location in terms of layout and design. It was considered that it would also help address inequalities by the provision of jobs contributing to the local and community wealth. It provided an essential community facility. There was no detrimental landscape impact.
[10] The appellant appeals the decision notice on four grounds. First, that the proposal does not accord with the development plan as required under the 1997 Act. Second, irrelevant considerations were taken into account when making the planning decision. Third, that relevant considerations were not relied on when making the planning decision. Finally, the appellant contends that the decision notice did not provide adequate reasons.
[11] The respondent submits that the DMRC considered the development plan as they were required to do. They provided reasoning as to why they considered each policy was complied with. The appellant’s complaint is related to planning judgement and weight. There was no question of the respondent failing to interpret and apply properly any part of the development plan. Second, the respondent considered relevant factors. There was evidence before the DMRC to allow them to conclude that the cost and demand for cremations in the locality was high. Third, that the DMRC did not fail to take into consideration relevant factor is incorrect. The DMRC’s decision was based on traffic surveys, a site visit and consultation with Angus Council’s Road Service. Finally, the appellant has failed to identify the way in which the decision is improper, inadequate or unintelligible.
The appeal will be heard by the First Division on 15 October 2025.