Planning Judicial Review – Rame Head, Cornwall

Richard Buxton Solicitors brought successful judicial review proceedings on behalf of the Claimant, Malcolm Cross (a local resident and founder of the Rame Protection Group), against the decision of Cornwall Council to grant planning permission for the development of a detached two-storey agricultural dwelling with garage and parking on Rame Head in Cornwall.

The site in question was located within the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and on the Heritage Coast. The Claimant argued that the decision to grant planning permission was unlawful because i) the Council had breached its duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission; and ii) there had been a failure to determine whether or not, and the extent to which, the proposed development was in accordance with the development plan. The challenge was successful on both grounds.

In respect of Ground 1, the Judge held that the Council was under a common law duty to provide reasons in this case. The factors which gave rise to the common law duty were: i) the proposed development site was in a highly sensitive cliff-top setting on the Heritage Coast and in an “iconic part” of the AONB; ii) the committee had departed from the clear and reasoned recommendations of both its Planning Officer, and the AONB Officer, that the application be refused; and iii) there was extensive public opposition to the proposed development, evidenced by over 130 letters of objection. As there was a common law duty to give planning reasons, the committee should have identified any such reasons prior to voting on the resolution. The Judge found that the Council had breached its duty, as the reasons proposed by the committee vice-chair were inadequate and were not properly formulated and recorded.

On Ground 2, the Judge found that the planning committee had failed to properly interpret policies 7 (housing in the countryside) and 23 (natural environment) of the development plan. Establishing the “essential need” criteria under paragraph 5 of Policy 7, did not in itself justify development in the AONB, which must meet additional criteria under Policy 23, namely the requirement that the development proposal must conserve and enhance the landscape character and natural beauty of the AONB.

Ben Fullbrook acted as counsel for the Claimant.