Cindy Jones, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council

Planning authorities must give reasons that are intelligible and adequate to explain how the principal controversial issues were resolved. The reasons need address the main issues, not every material consideration, and may be brief. A planning committee departing from an officer’s recommendation must nevertheless give adequate reasons, but need not analyse compliance with every individual development-plan policy. The question is whether the decision, read fairly and in context, enables the reader to understand what was decided and why. A reasons challenge also requires genuine substantial prejudice. Where any deficiency would not have affected the outcome, relief may additionally be refused under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A).

The claimant sought judicial review of Cornwall Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission for five dwellings, including affordable housing, at land east of Two Stiles, St Merryn. The planning committee departed from officers’ recommendations to refuse permission. The claimant alleged that the committee’s reasons were inadequate concerning harm to the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, highway safety and compliance with Policy 9 of the Cornwall Local Plan.

The central issue was whether the committee’s reasons adequately explained its decision and whether any deficiency caused substantial prejudice.

1. The claim was dismissed. The committee’s reasons, although brief, were adequate, intelligible and sufficient to explain the decision.
2. The committee was entitled to describe the landscape harm as limited and localised, to acknowledge that some harm would arise, and to attach great weight to safeguarding the AONB while giving greater weight to the urgent need for affordable housing. It was not necessary to quantify the precise degree of landscape harm.
3. The committee was entitled to conclude that the proposal was acceptable in highway terms. It relied on the absence of a material increase in junction users and the possibility of improving visibility by condition. That reasoning was adequate despite the improvement being limited to the northern visibility splay.
4. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the committee had to consider conformity with the development plan as a whole. It was not required to determine compliance with every individual policy. The committee was entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to disagree with the officers and conclude that Policy 9 was complied with.
5. The claimant had not shown genuine substantial prejudice arising from any alleged lack of detail. Alternatively, relief would have been refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, since the outcome was highly likely to have been the same even if fuller reasons had been given.

A draft order, together with submissions on any unresolved matters, was to be filed within 14 days.