Corbett, R (On the Application Of) v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Cornwall Council ("Appellant") granted planning permission for a development proposed by an interested party ("Developer") on land adjacent to an existing caravan park in a designated Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) in Cornwall. The proposal involved the stationing of 15 static holiday caravans and 15 holiday lodges, extending the existing holiday park. The site was located in the countryside but outside the Cornwall and Tamar Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The decision to grant planning permission was made by the council's Central Sub-Area Planning Committee on 19 February 2018, with formal permission granted on 1 March 2018.

A parish councillor and leader of the local Planning Group ("Objector") representing the parish council, which opposed the development, challenged the council's decision by judicial review issued on 11 April 2018. The High Court quashed the council's grant of planning permission on 1 May 2019. Cornwall Council appealed this decision with permission granted on 5 November 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in law by holding that the council’s decision to grant planning permission was not in accordance with the development plan due to conflict with Policy 14 of the Restormel Local Plan protecting Areas of Great Landscape Value.
2. Whether the judge was wrong to find the council’s reasons for granting permission, as set out in the officer’s report, were inadequate.
3. Whether the judge should have found the council acted unlawfully by failing to identify Policy 7 of the Cornwall Local Plan (concerning housing in the countryside) as relevant to the proposal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The council correctly understood and lawfully applied the relevant development plan policies, including the interplay between Policy 14 and other policies.
• The judge’s approach was overly strict and legalistic, risking unnecessary designation of departures from the development plan for minor conflicts.
• The planning judgment on the extent and significance of any breach of Policy 14 was properly for the council as decision-maker, not the court.
• The officer’s report acknowledged the breach of Policy 14 but concluded the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole, considering all relevant policies and material considerations.
• The council’s decision complied with statutory duties under sections 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Respondent's Arguments

• The proposal conflicted clearly and unambiguously with Policy 14, which prohibits development causing harm to AGLVs, thus rendering the grant of permission unlawful.
• The officer’s report was inadequate and misleading because it failed to advise the committee that the application was not in accordance with the development plan.
• The council also misconstrued Policy 7 by failing to consider it as relevant, as the holiday accommodation fell within the scope of “housing in the countryside” restricted by that policy.
• Policy 14 should be interpreted as overriding or qualifying Policy 5 (which supports tourism development), meaning any harm to AGLVs under Policy 14 should preclude permission.
• Legal authorities support intervention where a proposal is clearly contrary to the development plan, and the council failed to properly apply these principles.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed whether the council erred in law by granting planning permission despite the acknowledged conflict with Policy 14, which prohibits development causing harm to Areas of Great Landscape Value. It considered the development plan as a whole, including Policy 5 supporting sustainable tourism development and Policy 23 concerning landscape protection.

The court emphasized established legal principles that development plans often contain conflicting policies and that the planning authority must exercise judgment in weighing these conflicts to determine whether a proposal accords with the plan overall. The court rejected the view that a breach of a single policy, even one expressed in unqualified terms like Policy 14, automatically precludes conformity with the plan.

The officer’s report was found to have correctly identified all relevant policies (except Policy 7, which was addressed separately), acknowledged the conflict with Policy 14, and properly exercised planning judgment by balancing the limited localised harm to the AGLV against the economic and social benefits from tourism development under Policy 5. The committee was properly informed and exercised lawful discretion.

Regarding Policy 7, the court found that the holiday accommodation proposed was properly assessed under Policy 5 as tourism accommodation, not as housing in the countryside restricted by Policy 7. The occupancy condition limiting use to holiday accommodation was a key factor supporting this interpretation. The court rejected the argument that Policy 7 should apply to the proposal, noting the policies should be read sensibly and harmoniously without creating contradictions.

The court also addressed the adequacy of the officer’s reasoning and found no material defect or misleading advice that would warrant intervention. The officer’s report was legally sound and appropriately guided the committee in discharging its statutory duties.

Overall, the court concluded that the council did not misinterpret or misapply the development plan policies, and its decision to grant permission was lawful and supported by proper planning judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, overturning the High Court’s quashing of the planning permission.

The direct effect is that the planning permission granted by the council remains valid and the proposed development may proceed subject to the conditions imposed. The decision confirms the principle that a local planning authority may lawfully grant permission for development that conflicts with one policy if, on a balanced judgment, it accords with the development plan as a whole. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles on the interpretation and application of development plan policies in cases of conflict.