Corbett v The Cornwall Council

A development plan must be interpreted objectively, by reference to its language and proper context. The court must distinguish interpretation of policy from the planning authority’s evaluative judgment in applying it. Where a policy provides that harmful development in an Area of Great Landscape Value will not be permitted, permission would be contrary to the development plan unless material considerations justify departure. An officer’s report must make that position clear and identify and assess the considerations said to justify departure. A general balancing exercise under countryside policies is insufficient. Failure to explain the legal effect of the development plan and the basis for departure is a material defect, making the decision unlawful.

The claimant challenged Cornwall Council’s grant of planning permission for 15 holiday lodges and 15 static caravans in the Watergate and Lanherne Area of Great Landscape Value. The challenge alleged that the Council had failed properly to take account of the development plan and had given inadequate reasons.

The relevant development plan included the Cornwall Local Plan: Strategic Policies 2010 to 2030 and saved Policy 14 of the Restormel Local Plan 2001. Saved Policy 14 stated that development causing harm to the landscape, features and characteristics of an Area of Great Landscape Value would not be permitted. The central issues were whether the proposal was contrary to the development plan and whether the officer’s report adequately explained the basis for granting permission.

1. The claim succeeded and the planning permission was quashed.
2. The development plan had to be interpreted objectively and in context. Applying Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13, interpretation was a matter for the court, while the application of policy to facts remained a matter of planning judgment. The distinction between interpretation and judgment was reinforced by Hopkins Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37.
3. Saved Policy 14 was deliberately retained in 2016. Read with Policy 23, it prohibited development which would harm the landscape, features and characteristics of the designated Area of Great Landscape Value. It did not prohibit all development within such an area, and there was no inconsistency between the policies. The presumption in favour of sustainable development applied only to applications according with the development plan.
4. A grant of permission for development causing the prohibited harm would therefore be a decision not in accordance with the development plan. Material considerations had to indicate why permission should nevertheless be granted.
5. The officer’s report did not explain that the development plan required refusal unless material considerations justified departure. It merely balanced the landscape impact against economic benefits under general countryside policies. That was inadequate. The report needed to identify the material considerations supporting departure and assess whether they were sufficient to overcome the specific policy protection. This followed the principles concerning materially misleading or materially defective officer’s reports in R (Oates) v Wealden DC [2018] EWCA Civ 1304 and Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314.
6. It was inappropriate to refuse relief under section 31(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 by speculating about material considerations that the decision-maker had not identified. The decision was unlawful and was quashed.