R (Corbett) v Cornwall Council [2020] EWCA Civ 508
Corbett is an important Court of Appeal authority on section 38(6) and the question whether a proposal accords with the development plan when relevant policies point in different directions.
The Court allowed Cornwall Council’s appeal and restored its planning permission for an extension to a holiday park. It rejected the High Court’s conclusion that conflict with one landscape policy necessarily meant the proposal was contrary to the development plan as a whole.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2020] EWCA Civ 508; [2020] JPL 1277
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 9th April 2020
- Judge
- Lewison LJ, Lindblom LJ and Leggatt LJ
- Case number
- C1/2019/2179
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
Development plan policies can pull in different directions
The proposed extension to Sun Haven Valley Caravan Park was supported by a Cornwall Local Plan policy encouraging tourism development, but it conflicted to a degree with policies protecting an Area of Great Landscape Value.
Lindblom LJ confirmed that section 38(6) requires the decision-maker to establish whether the proposal accords with the development plan as a whole. A proposal does not have to comply with every individual policy.
No automatic priority for the landscape policy
The High Court had treated the landscape policy as effectively overriding the tourism policy once harm was identified. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Nothing in the wording or structure of the plan gave that policy automatic primacy.
The weight to give competing policies, once correctly interpreted, was a matter of planning judgment for the local planning authority.
The officer’s report was legally adequate
The planning officer had identified the landscape harm, the economic and tourism benefits and the relevant development plan policies. She then explained why she considered the proposal to accord with the plan as a whole.
The Court held that this reasoning was clear enough. Planning officer reports are read fairly and as a whole, not as if they were legal pleadings. The council had understood the relevant policies and had not applied them unlawfully.
The countryside housing policy did not govern the holiday units
The Court also rejected the argument that the officer had unlawfully failed to apply the plan’s countryside housing policy. The proposal was for tourism accommodation and permission was conditioned so that the units could only be used as holiday accommodation.
On that basis the tourism policy, rather than the policy restricting new countryside housing, was the relevant policy for the proposed use.
The 2019 High Court judgment was reversed
This judgment overturned R (Corbett) v Cornwall Council [2019] EWHC 1022 (Admin), which had quashed the permission. Planning Geek holds that first-instance judgment separately because it shows the reasoning rejected on appeal.
Read the full Corbett judgment
Planning Geek holds the Court of Appeal judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Case Law Page Created: 26th September 2026