Cross, R (On the Application Of) v Cornwall Council

A local planning authority may owe a common-law duty to give reasons when granting permission for development in a highly sensitive protected landscape, contrary to officer advice, the development plan and substantial public opposition. The reasons must be formulated before the vote and accurately recorded in the formal resolution or minutes. A transcript of the wider debate cannot be used to reconstruct collective reasons. The reasons must explain the authority’s conclusions on the principal controversial issues, including departure from an officer’s recommendation. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, satisfying an agricultural-need policy does not itself justify development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where a separate policy requires conservation and enhancement of landscape character and natural beauty.

The claimant, a local resident, sought judicial review of Cornwall Council’s decision to grant conditional planning permission for a farm dwelling in the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. The planning officer and the AONB officer had recommended refusal because of harm arising from the dwelling’s siting, scale, materials and design, and there had been substantial public opposition.

The planning committee nevertheless approved the application by seven votes to six. The claimant challenged the decision for failure to give adequate reasons and failure properly to determine whether the proposal accorded with the development plan.

1. Duty to give reasons. The Council was under a common-law duty to give reasons. The combination of the highly sensitive cliff-top AONB and Heritage Coast location, the clear refusal recommendations, departure from the development plan and officer advice, and extensive public opposition made this a case calling for a formulated statement of reasons.
2. Recording reasons. Planning reasons had to be identified before the vote and recorded in the resolution forming the public record. The committee’s reasons were those proposed by Councillor Parsons and adopted by the vote. The minutes inaccurately added words which had not formed part of the resolution. The full meeting transcript was an extraneous document and could not be used to identify the reasons of the collective decision-maker.
3. Adequacy. The resolution did not explain why the committee rejected the officer’s assessment that the development would harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, or why the social and economic benefits outweighed that harm. A bare conclusion that agricultural need outweighed landscape harm was inadequate. Ground 1 was made out.
4. Development plan. Policy 7 of the Local Plan addressed the circumstances permitting a new dwelling in the open countryside. Policy 23 imposed additional requirements for development in the AONB, including conservation and enhancement of landscape character and natural beauty. Establishing an essential agricultural need could satisfy the local-need limb, but did not satisfy the separate conservation and enhancement requirement. The committee therefore failed properly to interpret policies 7 and 23, contrary to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Ground 2 was made out.
5. The decision granting planning permission was quashed. The defects went to the heart of the justification for permission and caused legally significant prejudice.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court (Administrative Court). The Council’s planning permission was quashed.