Corbett, R (On the Application Of) v The Cornwall Council [2021] EWHC 1114 (Admin) (30 April 2021)

Corbett, R (On the Application Of) v The Cornwall Council [2021] EWHC 1114 (Admin) (30 April 2021)

The phrase 'immediately adjoining the settlement' in Policy 3 is not limited to sites physically touching the settlement without intervening features; it includes sites 'next to' or 'very near' the settlement, and whether a site qualifies involves an exercise of planning judgment. The Council's interpretation and application of Policy 3 were lawful, and the Officer's Report was not misleading.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1114 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: William Corbett; Defendant: Cornwall Council; Interested Party: Dympna Wilson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Local Plan Policies, Development in Open Countryside
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Local Plan Policies Development in Open Countryside

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Corbett

Claimant

Cornwall Council

Defendant

Dympna Wilson

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of 'immediately adjoining the settlement' in Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan
  2. 2 Whether planning permission was granted based on a misinterpretation of policy

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'immediately adjoining the settlement' in Policy 3 is not limited to sites physically touching the settlement without intervening features; it includes sites 'next to' or 'very near' the settlement, and whether a site qualifies involves an exercise of planning judgment. The Council's interpretation and application of Policy 3 were lawful, and the Officer's Report was not misleading.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed