Corbett, R (On the Application Of) v

A development proposal may accord with the development plan as a whole despite conflicting with an individual policy. Where relevant policies point in different directions, the planning authority must understand them correctly and exercise planning judgment concerning their relative importance and the extent of compliance or breach.

An unqualified policy protecting a landscape designation does not automatically override a policy supporting tourism development unless the plan, sensibly construed in context, gives it that priority. A planning officer’s report is legally defective only if its advice is materially misleading through a distinct and material defect.

The council granted permission to extend an existing holiday park with 15 static caravans and 15 holiday lodges in an Area of Great Landscape Value. Its officer found slight or moderate localised landscape harm, but concluded that the proposal’s tourism and economic benefits meant it accorded with the development plan as a whole.

A deputy High Court judge allowed a claim for judicial review and quashed the permission: [2019] EWHC 1022 (Admin). He held that saved Policy 14 required harmful development in the designated area to be refused, so permission would necessarily depart from the plan.

The council appealed. The issues concerned Policy 14’s relationship with the plan’s other policies, the adequacy of the officer’s report, and whether Policy 7 governing housing in the countryside also applied to the holiday accommodation.

1. Appeal allowed. Policy 14 did not have automatic primacy over the other development plan policies. Neither its unqualified language nor the absence of words such as “normally” meant that every conflict with it, however slight, necessarily placed a proposal in conflict with the plan as a whole. The policies contained no stated or implied order of priority: paras [38]–[43].

2. Policy 5 supported suitable tourism accommodation, while Policy 14 and Policy 23 weighed against development harming an Area of Great Landscape Value. Those policies pointed in different directions. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the council had to decide whether the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole. It was entitled to give greater weight to the tourism and economic benefits than to slight or moderate localised landscape harm: paras [43]–[47].

3. The planning officer’s report was adequate. Such a report need not contain a flawless discussion of every issue. Judicial intervention requires advice that is significantly or seriously misleading because of a distinct and material defect. The officer identified and correctly understood the relevant policies, addressed the material considerations, and lawfully guided the committee in performing its statutory duties: paras [48]–[51].

4. Policy 7 did not also have to be applied in the circumstances. Policies 5 and 7 pursued different objectives and had to be read sensibly without introducing an unintended contradiction. The proposal was an extension of an existing tourism facility, satisfied Policy 5, and was controlled by a condition requiring holiday use and prohibiting occupation as a sole or main residence. The officer was therefore entitled to treat it as tourism accommodation rather than housing in the countryside: paras [56]–[64].

5. Planning policy interpretation remains a question of law for the court. Its application to facts, the relative weight given to policies pointing in different directions, and the balancing of competing planning considerations are matters of planning judgment, reviewable on conventional public law grounds: paras [45]–[47], [65]–[67]. The grant of planning permission should not have been quashed: paras [67]–[70].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the council’s appeal unanimously and held that the grant of planning permission should not have been quashed: [2020] EWCA Civ 508.
2. Administrative Court, Planning Court: A deputy judge of the High Court allowed the judicial review claim and quashed the council’s grant of planning permission: [2019] EWHC 1022 (Admin).