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

Under this ground of challenge, the Claimant’s case is that during the latter stages of the Committee’s discussion of the planning application at their meeting on 1 May 2024, Ms Hunt intervened and made a statement as to the proper approach to application of the Sandford principle which was wrong in law and misled the Committee into legal error in determining the planning application. In order to address that contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant extract from the transcript of the Committee’s discussion on 1 May 2024.

In order to provide the context, I begin that extract from the point at which Mr Peter Walter, who spoke and voted against the approval of the planning application, took the discussion back to the Sandford principle. Those who spoke during the discussion of the Sandford principle included not only Tiffany Hunt but also Peter Walter, Mark Kidd, Andrew Smith and Vicky Hughes.

“Peter Walter: … can I … take us back to the Sandford Principle…we start off at 98 cars a day … the Travel Plan aims to reduce that number. We don't know by how much it will reduce that number, and we don't know for how long it would be successful. But if you take it back to Sandford Principle, we have to give stronger or greater weight to protecting the park and the natural environment. And then the second principle, so anything that we are doing in … increasing those numbers of cars coming is kind of counter to the first principle. And I just remind members that we have to give a greater weight to the first principle of protecting the natural environment.

Mark Kidd: Yes. So, the Sandford Principle, we have two duties as a National Park. One is preserving the landscape, and the second one is promoting opportunities to experience the outstanding, special qualities of the National Park; and if there's ever a conflict, ideally resolve the two duties, and if there's ever an either or, you have to go with … the first one.

Peter Walter: If I can just come back. So any cars increasing travel in Elterwater is going against the first principle.

Andrew Smith: You're required to give greater weight. It doesn't necessarily mean that if you had… I'm just trying to pick a completely mad example, but you have something that delivers unbelievable amounts of benefit to the second purpose, in terms of promoting those opportunities for education and enjoyment, and it's going to generate one car. It doesn't say, you're generating one car, so greater weight means that you've got a really small amount of harm over here, so I have to go with that over this unbelievable amount of benefit over here. It doesn't force you into that scenario, but it does, as you say, Peter, correctly require you to give greater weight to the first principle over the second, if you identify, the first purpose over the second, if you identify a tension.

Mark Kidd: Tiffany.

Tiffany Hunt: I think it's an important point, and I certainly, throughout my working life, have been brought up on the Sandford Principle, and I've certainly taken it into account here. Just not intending to play devil's advocate, but I think you've got the two statutory purposes, conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and then secondly, promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Parks by the public. I suppose arguably you could say that this enhances the cultural heritage by providing access to a site that's never been open to the public before; and will actually introduce visitors to an aspect of the Lake District heritage that tends to be rather underplayed - the industrial heritage. Then the second duty or statutory purpose of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public, I think it does fulfil that. So, I think it's a fine balance, as ever, and I think that's what it comes back to. It's always going to be a balance, and all we can do is make our best judgements, weighing up the pros and cons.

Mark Kidd: That’s it. And that’s what we’re going to do now. Any other comments, members? Because we’re ultimately going to head towards a vote. Tiffany”.

The discussion then turned to Ms Hunt’s proposal that the Committee should approve the planning application –

“Tiffany Hunt: So if I pin my colours to the mast. We’ve had a long and very good discussion about this. It’s always been a challenging application. I think we are fully aware of the amount of public and local interest and have certainly looked very, and studied carefully, both reports and also the sort of concerns that have been raised by both individuals and local community, and also the many other groups involved in working in the Lake District. And I think it is fair to say that there have been some in support. It's not just objections that we're looking at. I thought Catherine's report was very helpful, as I said at the outset, in setting out the issues that we needed to be looking at, and get it right, so that we are particularly focused on the aspects of transport.

…

So, we bump up against the issue of the Transport Plan and how robust it is. And this is one where I think there are always going to be some doubts, but I think on balance, I come back to giving weight to the Travel Plan, the intentions of the Travel Plan, and I have listened to the points made by the applicants and their commitment to implementing it…..

I think there is much to be said for heritage interpretation, and it is an indoor attraction. I think if this was all happening outside, I would be very wary indeed. In fact, I think it would just be a flat no. What makes, I think to me, a big difference is that it’s underground…

I think we have to recognise that tourism is very important to the Cumbrian economy, and the Cumbria Tourism’s recent destination management plan highlights that fact all clearly. And also that I was concerned in the ICOMOS report that this would invite a type of audience and attraction that’s likely to disrupt tranquil and the contemplative character of the Valley. I think we have to accept that, and welcome, in fact, that there are a much broader, more diverse group of visitors coming to the Lake District who might well want to be introduced to the Lake District or enjoy it in slightly different ways than has been traditional in the past. I do take very seriously what UNESCO and ICOMOS say. We do value our World Heritage Site inscription, and that’s certainly not something we would wish to put under threat.

….overall, therefore, in weighing up my pros and cons and in the balance, I come down on the side of supporting this application. I hope, as I said earlier, that this is an application where the issues of sustainable transport are really focused upon and could become an exemplar in the future….I would actually like to propose that we should accept this application.

Mark Kidd: Okay. Thank you, Tiffany. Peter.

Peter Walter: Thank you. Can I summarise an alternative position? I don't think this Travel Plan is credible, or can give us any significant confidence that the 100 cars a day that are proposed will not simply end up driving to Elterwater and parking on the common. I appreciate the benefits of the interpretation and understanding of mining, and I think that is a real benefit. But I think in the absence of credible measures to significantly reduce the impact on residents, visitors, and landscape of 100 cars a day, that this is not a credible travel plan and that that damage will still occur.

Mark Kidd: Okay. Thank you, Peter. So, we've got a proposal for and a proposal against. Anyone wish to second? Vicky.

Vicky Hughes: Thanks, Mark. Just weighing everything up and listening to all the comments, I feel I would be wishing to support Tiffany's recommendation of approval. Just looking at the conclusion in the report and weighing up the impacts on the character and the appearance of the area, because as Tiffany said, it's underground. There's going to be very little impact. I think the main concern is the travelling to the attraction, and the 100 cars a day is going to be the maximum in busy periods. It's not going to be every day. I do think there is a way of working within the Travel Management Plan to assist that and reduce that”.

The Committee then moved to a vote, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting (to which I have referred above).