Councillor Stephen Dornan, the chair of the City of Glasgow Licensing Board spoke out after a legal ruling considered part of the 2005 Licensing (Scotland) Act.

The board had turned down an application from petroleum giants BP for a licence to sell alcohol at two garages in Glasgow.

BP then appealed that and Sheriff Craig Scott has now told the licensing board to reconsider its decision.

In his ruling Sheriff Craig Scott said some of language used in the guidance from the Scottish Government on the legislation was “somewhat nebulous”.

Councillor Stephen Dornan, the chair of the City of Glasgow Licensing Board also voiced his concerns that “anomalies and ambiguities” in the Act could “give rise to a series of potentially expensive appeals”.

The licensing board had refused the applications for licences for the garages at Paisley Road West and Great Western Road on the basis that garages are classed as “excluded premises” under a section of the 2005 Licensing Act.

However the Act goes on state that garages “are not excluded premises if persons resident in the locality in which the premises are situated are, or are likely to become, reliant to a significant extent on the premises” as their main source of groceries.

Lawyers for the licensing board pointed out guidance from the Scottish Government referred to the “local community” rather than the phrase “person’s resident in the locality”.

When he considered the case Sheriff Scott said community was a “somewhat nebulous concept” and said the use of the phrase “persons residents in the locality” carried “a far greater degree of certainty”.

Sheriff Scott concluded the licensing board had “erred in its application” of the Act.

He said the board was required to make its decision on the basis of what the legislation actually said, but stated: “It declined to do that and according erred in law.”

He upheld BP’s appeal and said: “It seems to me that each case should be remitted back to the board for reconsideration of the decisions.”

Councillor Dornan said the licensing board was “disappointed at the sheriff’s rulings”.

He added: “We believe the licensing board has taken a sensible decision following the spirit of the legislation and the intentions of Parliament.”

The licensing board now has to decide if it should appeal the sheriff’s decision.

And Councillor Dornan said: “There is also wider disquiet about the anomalies and ambiguities contained within the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 that could give rise to a series of potentially expensive appeals.

“We have raised these issues on numerous occasions with Government officials but they remain unresolved.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “The decision on whether to grant a license for individual garages is a matter for the local licensing board, in accordance with the terms of the Act.

“We have made clear that we will review the guidance on this, along with a number of other documents relating to the Act, at the end of the transition period.”

She added: “The Act doesn’t say that garages can’t sell alcohol but there are matters in the Act that the board must consider when looking at an application from a garage.”

The spokeswoman continued: “The implementation of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is progressing well, in accordance with the previous administration’s timetable.

“The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 does much more than regulate whether garages can sell alcohol.

“This piece of legislation bans irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs, introduces licensing standards officers, gives members of the public more rights to object to licensing applications and gives licensing board much wider powers to take action against problem premises.”