AC-2024-MAN-000347 - [2025] EWHC 2630 (Admin)

In order to address these contentions, it is necessary to refer to the assessment of the Langdale Valley in the LCA -

“Distinctive Characteristics

Classic, U-shaped glacial, long, narrow valley of Great Langdale, with typical features of headwalls, corries, glacial tarns, hanging valley and truncated spurs. Bowfell and Crinkle Crags and the distinctive skyline of the Langdale Pikes dominate the head of the Langdale valley and provide a powerful sense of enclosure;

…

The three settlements of the area, Elterwater, Chapel Stile and Little Langdale are products of a working industrial landscape. Elterwater with its gunpowder workers housing, Chapel Stile with its green slate quarrying community terraces and church and Little Langdale, a loose group of buildings with strong building evidence of nearby extensive slate quarries;

…

Despite being one of the busier valleys Langdale has a strong sense of isolation, remoteness, contrast and tranquillity, as a result of the dramatic landform and the perceived naturalness of the high, open, fells.

Local Distinctiveness and Sense of Place

The glaciated, U-shaped meandering form of Great Langdale Valley is enclosed by dramatic High Fells, which loom above the pastoral valley floor and provide a strong sense of containment and isolation, particularly at the valley head. The valley runs from Ambleside in the east, to the steep, dominating and highly distinctive form of the Langdale Pikes in the west, encompassing a network of small, irregular, walled meadows along the valley bottoms and scattered barns, intakes with remnants of wood and veteran trees, and a ring garth wall, which contrast strongly with the bare rock and bracken of the dramatic higher Fells. Unusually for a large glaciated valley, it does not contain a lake, though the classic corrie tarn of Stickle Tarn tucked below the bulk of Pavey Ark is a striking glaciation feature. Little Langdale … has a smaller-scale and more intimate feel however there is a very strong sense of tranquillity and isolation within both, especially at the valley heads”.

In paragraphs 5.51 to 5.53 of the Report, the planning officer provided the Committee with a detailed and accurate summary of that character assessment. She reminded members that the Langdale Valley was assessed to have a strong sense of isolation, remoteness, contrast and tranquillity, particularly towards the head of the valley. Its character was strongly rural; its landscape value was high. The valley was particularly valued by people for its scenic beauty and cultural landscape, for its public rights of way for recreation and wider landscape views. It is reasonable to assume that members of the Committee will have had at least some familiarity with these landscape characteristics and qualities of the Langdale Valley, given its acknowledged importance as a much-loved area of the Lake District.

In paragraph 5.61 of the Report, the planning officer gave her assessment of the impact on the landscape of the Langdale Valley of the increase in traffic on local roads resulting from operation of the development. For the reasons given in that paragraph, her planning judgment was that the development would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape. That planning judgment informed her overall conclusion in paragraph 5.62 that the development would not result in unacceptable impacts on the character and appearance of the landscape.

In essence, the Claimant’s argument is that since in those two paragraphs of the Report, the planning officer did not refer in terms to the impact of the development on the tranquillity, isolation or remoteness of the landscape of the Langdale Valley, she is to be taken to have failed to consider that matter. There is, however, no substance in that argument. The adequacy of the planning officer’s assessment of the impact of the development on the landscape of the Langdale Valley must be considered as a whole, rather than by picking out particular paragraphs in isolation.

It is clear that the planning officer properly drew the Committee’s attention to the relevance of tranquillity and to the significance given by policy 05 of the Local Plan to the assessment of the particular qualities and sensitivities of the Langdale Valley in the LCA. She summarised that assessment in the Report. Her summary was accurate and complete. It referred to the strong sense of remoteness, isolation and tranquillity as key characteristics of the Langdale Valley. It will also be recalled that the planning officer had drawn the Committee’s attention to objectors’ concerns over the impact of the development on the valley landscape by virtue of increased traffic and movement.

In advising the Committee in paragraph 5.61 of the Report that she did not consider that the increased traffic associated with the development would have a detrimental impact on the Lake District landscape, acknowledging as she did the extraordinary beauty and harmony of that landscape, the planning officer had well in mind those particular characteristics of the Langdale Valley to which she had referred a few paragraphs previously. Contrary to Mr Brett’s submission, on a fair and proper reading of this part of the Report, there is no doubt that the planning officer did take into account and reach a planning judgment as to the impact of increased traffic and movement resulting from the development on the landscape of the Langdale Valley, recognising as she did that the valley was characterised by its by its tranquillity, remoteness and sense of isolation. She was not required to extend an already lengthy report by spelling out again that the landscape hereabouts was so characterised. Consistent with authority, it is to be assumed that the Committee accepted the planning officer’s judgment.

The Claimant’s second contention under this ground is founded on a misunderstanding of the planning officer’s assessment in paragraph 5.61 of the Report. The measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement were plainly relevant to the question whether the increased traffic and movement associated with the development would harm the landscape. However, it is incorrect to say that the planning officer relied solely on the implementation of those measures as the basis for her judgment that increased traffic and movement would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape of the Langdale Valley. She relied upon a number of matters in paragraph 5.61 of the Report, including the fact that visitor numbers would be limited by virtue of the finite capacity of the caverns at the quarry in which the viewing platforms and zip-wires would be installed.

The planning officer had stated the predicted annual number of visitors to the development and the seasonally adjusted daily traffic numbers earlier in the Report. In paragraph 5.56 of the Report, she accepted that the increase in traffic would be noticeable both on site and in the Langdale Valley. She recommended the imposition of a condition capping the number of visitors using the cavern explorer route to 294 per day. Condition 17 imposed that cap, the stated reason for doing so being to control and manage likely movements to the premises and within the locality to avoid harmful changes to the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with policy 05 of the Local Plan.

Whether the noticeable increase in traffic and movement, considered in conjunction with the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement to encourage more sustainable modes of transport and the reassurance of the daily cap on visitor numbers, would result in a harmful impact on the landscape of the Langdale Valley was a question of planning judgment. I do not accept the Claimant’s contention that the planning officer’s answer to that question in paragraph 5.61 of the Report is an irrational exercise of planning judgment. I find it impossible to conclude that the reasons given in paragraph 5.61, read in the context of the planning officer’s overall assessment of the landscape impacts of the development and its operation, fail to provide a rational basis for that judgment.

The Claimant’s third contention under this ground lacks merit. It is clear from paragraphs 5.38 and 5.61 of the Report that planning officer recognised the need to assess and form a judgment whether the impact of the increased traffic and activity resulting from the development was acceptable in impacts, particularly on the landscape of the Langdale Valley. It is, moreover, clear that in making that assessment, the planning officer asked herself whether the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement to promote modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport than the private car were both robust and achievable. In short, the planning officer examined those measures within the analytical framework set by policy 21 of the Local Plan, in accordance with the guidance given by paragraph 3.18.05 of the Local Plan.

Policy 21 offers policy support to proposals which seek to broaden and encourage the use of sustainable transport modes for visitors; and thereby to reduce the need to travel by private car. It is obvious that in assessing whether a proposed tourism development has sought to fulfil that policy objective, it may be relevant to form a judgment whether the developer has done all that they reasonably can in the circumstances of the case to bring forward practical measures to encourage visitors to travel to the proposed tourist attraction other than by private car.

Ground 3 is rejected.