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

The Claimant’s first contention under this ground is that the Defendant failed to address the impacts of increased traffic resulting from operation of the development on the tranquillity, remoteness and isolation of the Langdale Valley. Mr Brett relied upon the terms of policy 05 of the Local Plan, which identified the impact of development on tranquillity as a material consideration. He also drew attention to the landscape character assessment for the Langdale Valley, which emphasised the valley’s strong sense of remoteness, tranquillity and isolation. Policy 05 required the Defendant’s determination of the planning application to be guided by the landscape character assessment and those distinctive characteristics of the Langdale Valley. It was submitted that the planning officer had failed to consider or to advise on those impacts in the Report. That was a material omission which vitiated the Committee’s decision to approve the planning application.

The Claimant’s second contention is that the planning officer’s advice to Committee, that the increased traffic movements from operation of the development would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape, was irrational. That advice was based solely on the implementation of the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement. However, it was submitted, it was not in issue that even assuming that those measures proved to be effective in practice, the development would still result is a noticeable increase in vehicular traffic on roads through the Langdale Valley, with inevitable adverse effects on the landscape of the Valley. To advise otherwise was irrational and materially misled the Committee.

The Claimant’s third contention is that in advising in paragraph 5.38 of the Report that the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement offered as much as an individual developer could reasonably achieve, the planning officer had addressed the wrong question. The relevant question was whether, allowing for the operation of the development in accordance with those measures, the impact on the landscape of the Langdale Valley of the increased traffic and activity resulting from the development was acceptable. For this reason also, it was submitted that the planning officer had given materially misleading advice to the Committee.