Mevagissey Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council & Anor

Major development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty must not be determined by a simple balance between development benefits and landscape harm. Under paragraphs 115–116 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the decision-maker must give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty and refuse permission unless there are exceptional circumstances and the development is demonstrated to be in the public interest. The assessment is development-specific and may require consideration of alternative sites or other ways of meeting the identified need.

Where a planning committee rejects an officer’s recommendation, its summary reasons must show that it understood and applied the relevant policies and must explain, at least briefly, why it departed from the officer’s analysis. A generic list of policies and a bare balancing exercise will not suffice.

The claimant sought judicial review of Cornwall Council’s grant of planning permission for 31 dwellings, including affordable housing, in an undeveloped coastal site within the South Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Council’s planning officer recommended refusal because the site would harm the AONB and alternative deliverable sites could meet the affordable-housing need with less harm.

The Planning Committee nevertheless approved the application, stating that the affordable housing would outweigh the impact on the AONB. The claimant challenged the decision on the construction and application of AONB policies, the adequacy of the reasons, and the failure to adopt an environmental-impact-assessment screening opinion.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 allowed. Paragraphs 115–116 of the National Planning Policy Framework give the conservation of landscape and scenic beauty in an AONB enhanced status. A committee determining a major development must give that consideration great weight and refuse permission unless it identifies exceptional circumstances and is satisfied that, notwithstanding that weight, the development is in the public interest.
2. Exceptional circumstances must be assessed in relation to the specific development. A pressing need for affordable housing may be relevant, but does not necessarily amount to exceptional circumstances where alternative deliverable sites would cause less harm to the AONB.
3. The Committee’s reasons showed a simple balancing exercise. They did not identify the exceptional circumstances, demonstrate that the development was in the public interest, address the alternative sites central to the officer’s analysis, or explain why the officer’s recommendation was rejected. The reference to broad sections of the NPPF and local plans did not establish that the Committee had considered the specific requirements of paragraphs 115–116.
4. Summary reasons for granting planning permission must enable an interested member of the public to understand the rationale and whether the relevant policies were correctly interpreted. Where a committee disagrees with its officer, it cannot ordinarily be assumed that it adopted the officer’s reasoning. Its reasons must make the departure from the officer’s recommendation rational and discernible.
5. Ground 3. The Site was a Schedule 2 development and the Council had breached regulations 7 and 5(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 by failing to adopt a screening opinion. However, had Grounds 1 and 2 failed, the court would have withheld relief because the later screening opinion showed that the development was not EIA development and the claimant suffered no possible prejudice.
6. The planning permission granted on 21 March 2013 was quashed and the application was remitted to the Council for redetermination.