James Noble & Anor, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council

In judicial review of a planning decision, the court must avoid hypercritical scrutiny of an officer’s report. The report need only address the principal important controversial issues and give intelligible and adequate reasons.

Where development is proposed in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the decision-maker must apply the statutory development-plan duty and give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. A lawful planning judgment may conclude that the proposal causes no harm, so that no separate balancing exercise is required. The weight given to material considerations is for the local planning authority, provided it avoids public law error. A planning authority may impose conditions restricting existing uses, but deciding that such a condition would be unreasonable is a matter of planning judgment if adequately explained and rationally reached.

The claimants sought judicial review of Cornwall Council’s delegated decision dated 25 November 2021 granting conditional planning permission for extensions and additional accommodation at the Cape Cornwall Golf and Country Club in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and along the Penwith Heritage Coast.

They alleged breaches of the development-plan duty and AONB-related policy duties, failure to address intensification and associated noise and light impacts, misdirection concerning conditions restricting existing events, and failure to consider or explain the treatment of transport evidence. Permission to bring the claim had been granted by Lang J.

1. The claim was dismissed. The officer’s report made clear that the proposal was not treated as a departure from the development plan. The missing answer to a duplicated computer-generated question did not undermine that conclusion.
2. The report expressly identified and addressed Cornwall Local Plan policies 2 and 23. The officer had regard to the AONB Unit’s representations, the NPPF provisions concerning AONBs and Heritage Coasts, and the Cornwall AONB Management Plan. Policy 23 substantially reflected and expanded those national and management-plan requirements.
3. The officer was entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to conclude that the specific development would preserve and enhance the area’s character and conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB. The report addressed light spill, noise, scale, siting, design and existing boundary treatments. Although noise was discussed principally under neighbour amenity, the report also engaged with potential harm to the AONB and Heritage Coast.
4. Because the officer found no harm to the AONB, there was no unperformed exercise of balancing potential harm against benefits. The Council was rationally entitled to depart from the AONB Unit’s view, having assessed the details of the proposal.
5. The Council did not misdirect itself in finding that a condition restricting weddings and other events would be unreasonable. The officer’s sparse reasoning was adequate in context, particularly given the conclusion that the modest development would enhance rather than harm the protected landscape. The decision did not suggest that such a condition was legally impermissible.
6. The transport ground failed. The Council had considered the claimants’ Vectos Transport Report by obtaining the highways officer’s response. It was not necessary to mention every document or representation in the report. The Council was entitled to adopt the highways officer’s rational and reasoned advice, subject to the event-management condition.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. Permission to bring the claim had been granted by Lang J.