William Corbett v Cornwall Council

A development plan policy supporting housing on previously developed land “immediately adjoining” a settlement does not necessarily require physical contiguity. The expression permits an evaluative planning judgment about the settlement’s extent and whether the site and proposed development are sufficiently close to it.

The decision-maker may consider physical, visual and functional relationships. The court determines the policy’s legal meaning, but reviews its application only on public law grounds. Policy language should be read in context and without statutory-style linguistic rigour.

Cornwall Council granted permission for a dwelling and garage on previously developed land connected by a drive to Trevarrian, a hamlet in north Cornwall. Its planning committee concluded that the proposal was “immediately adjoining” the settlement within Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan.

Mrs Justice Jefford dismissed William Corbett’s judicial review claim in [2021] EWHC 1114 (Admin). He appealed, contending that “immediately adjoining” required physical contiguity and that the proposed development’s functional relationship with the settlement was irrelevant. The central issues were whether the council had misinterpreted or misapplied Policy 3 and whether it had considered an immaterial factor.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Policy 3 had been correctly interpreted and lawfully applied. The planning conclusions were neither irrational nor otherwise unlawful.

2. The meaning of development plan policy is ultimately a question of law, while its application is for the decision-maker, subject to public law review. Planning policy should not be parsed with the linguistic rigour applicable to statutes or contracts. Its language, aims and context must be considered, recognising that policies frequently leave room for planning judgment.

3. The words “immediately adjoining” in Policy 3 did not necessarily mean “contiguous”, “coterminous”, “next to” or “very near”. They required the decision-maker to determine whether the site and proposed development were sufficiently close to the settlement to fall within that description. The word “immediately” narrowed the available evaluative judgment but did not eliminate it.

4. Two evaluative judgments were involved: identifying the extent of the settlement and determining whether the site and development immediately adjoined it. A rule based solely on physical contact could produce the perverse result that a site touching a settlement at one point necessarily qualified, while a non-touching site with a much closer relationship to the settlement as a whole did not.

5. The wider policy context supported this construction. Policy 3 contemplated several forms of development, not all of which had to be within or physically contiguous with a settlement. Its specific support for qualifying development operated as an exception to Policy 7’s general restriction on countryside housing.

6. The planning officer had recognised that the issue was arguable and had given reasons for finding the proposal sufficiently close and well related to Trevarrian. The committee had debated that issue fully. There was no material defect in the advice provided.

7. Although Policy 3 focused principally on physical and visual relationships, it did not exclude the proposed development’s functional relationship with the settlement. Considering its likely effect on Trevarrian’s residential setting and function was lawful and relevant.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2022] EWCA Civ 1069, unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion that Cornwall Council had interpreted and applied Policy 3 lawfully.
2. High Court, Planning Court: Mrs Justice Jefford dismissed the judicial review claim in [2021] EWHC 1114 (Admin).