Argyll and Bute Council 'acted lawfully' when selecting site for new Tobermory school campus, judge rules

A senior judge has ruled that a “once in a generation” decision made by councillors regarding schools provision on a Hebridean island was lawful.

Lord Cubie concluded that Argyll and Bute Council acted lawfully in selecting Tobermory South as the preferred site for a new school campus on Mull.

Islanders had raised a judicial review at the Court of Session, arguing the council failed to follow proper legal procedures when reaching its decision in March 2025.

The local authority plans to construct a new campus providing education for children aged two to 18. The project is intended to replace the existing Tobermory High School, which also houses primary and nursery provision and has been described as dilapidated.

However, many residents wanted primary education to remain in Tobermory while a new secondary school would be built at a more central location on the island.

Supporters of that approach argued it would cut journey times for pupils in remote areas and reduce the need for children from the south-west of Mull to board and attend school during the week in Oban before returning home at weekends.

The council maintained that funding constraints meant a single two to 18 campus was required. It argued that the split-site option preferred by some residents was unaffordable and would not represent best value for taxpayers’ money.

James Mure KC, for Mull Campus Working Group Ltd, told the court the council acted irrationally in rejecting the split-site option and failed to adequately consult the wider island community.

Lawyers for the council argued that extensive engagement had taken place and that there was no legal requirement to carry out a further formal consultation at the site selection stage.

In a written judgment, Lord Cubie rejected the petition and upheld the arguments made to him by the council.

Addressing the strength of feeling among residents, the judge made clear that this did not increase the council’s legal obligations.

He wrote: “The duty to consult is not absolute; the respondent has a discretion; despite the unfortunate use of the word ‘consult’ or ‘consultation’ from time to time, that vocabulary is not determinative.

“I consider that the respondent’s commitment to obtaining views did not rise above engagement. No promise to consult arises and there is no legitimate expectation of consultation arising simply from the scale or context of the decision.

“As I said earlier, strength of feeling does not heighten the legal obligations upon the respondent.”

The judge concluded there was no obligation to consult further on the short-listed sites and no “conspicuous unfairness” in the process adopted.

Residents had raised around £50,000 through an online CrowdJustice campaign to fund the legal challenge.

It is not clear whether locals plan to appeal to the Outer House of the Court of Session – Scotland’s highest civil appeal court.