Corbett v The Cornwall Council [2019] EWHC 1022 (Admin) (01 May 2019)

Corbett v The Cornwall Council [2019] EWHC 1022 (Admin) (01 May 2019)

The development plan, including saved Policy 14, prohibits developments causing harm to Areas of Great Landscape Value. The Defendant failed to recognise that granting permission was contrary to the development plan and did not identify or assess material considerations justifying such a departure. The officer's report contained a distinct and material defect by not making this clear to the committee. The decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1022 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: William Corbett; Defendant: The Cornwall Council; Interested Party: Steven Tavener
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.
Legal Topics
Development Plan Interpretation, Planning Permission, Areas of Great Landscape Value, Material Considerations, Officer's Report, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Development Plan Interpretation Planning Permission Areas of Great Landscape Value Material Considerations Officer's Report +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Corbett

Claimant

The Cornwall Council

Defendant

Steven Tavener

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority failed to properly consider the development plan, specifically saved Policy 14, when granting planning permission.
  2. 2 Whether the reasons given for granting planning permission were legally adequate.

Ratio Decidendi

The development plan, including saved Policy 14, prohibits developments causing harm to Areas of Great Landscape Value. The Defendant failed to recognise that granting permission was contrary to the development plan and did not identify or assess material considerations justifying such a departure. The officer's report contained a distinct and material defect by not making this clear to the committee. The decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.

Orders

  • The decision granting planning permission is quashed.