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

The Claimant submitted extensive written representations to the Defendant raising objections to both planning applications.

In their letter of 24 February 2023 commenting on the earlier planning application, the Claimant expressed their deep concerns about several elements of this proposal. Those concerns included traffic, vehicle and visitor impacts on the tranquillity and rural character of the area, conflicts with net zero commitments set at national, Cumbrian and Lake District levels and the stated aims of the Lake District National Park Management Plan relating to sustainable travel. In particular, the Claimant raised the need significantly to reduce use of the private car as a means of getting to, from and around the National Park. The Claimant’s objections included the following points –

“Given the landscape characteristics, sensitivities and existing pressures identified and the recommendations of the [Landscape Character Assessment], it is vitally important that any assessment of this proposal on the landscape includes impacts on tranquillity, on the strong rural character of the area and on the sense of remoteness and isolation. All these aspects of the landscape character of this area are highly vulnerable to and would be compromised by increased traffic, parked cars and visitor numbers, noise, lighting and movement, as well as any associated new or upgraded infrastructure such as signage and access points/routes. To avoid significant harm to these landscape characteristics it must be ensured that visitor numbers combined with the transport modes used, do not have negative impacts. Without very careful management and very innovative, effective means of controlling traffic and transport impacts, this proposal is not acceptable within the parameters of the Local Plan and LDNP Management Plan.

…

There should be no net increase in vehicles/traffic and associated problems; indeed the Traffic Assessment itself (at para. 2.5.2) states “the proposed development should have a robust set of measures to ensure baseline conditions do not worsen”. It is unfeasible to suggest that the stated 40-50,000 visitors per year expected to the site will not result in a worsening of traffic and parking issues unless very robust measures are put in place. The proposed measures for encouraging alternatives to the car are unrealistic and are highly unlikely to mitigate the impacts; certainly not to a level anywhere near what would be needed to avoid any worsening of the baseline.

…

As a result of the issues stated above, which render the proposed measures unrealistic, inconvenient and inviable, the vast majority of visitors will still access the attraction by car. 39-49 two-way visitor car movements per day are anticipated in the application based on 40-50,000 visitors per year and 3 people per car. However, it is highly unlikely that this will be spread out evenly across the year meaning that in high season there could be many more than 39-49 extra vehicles arriving in Elterwater every day hoping to find a place to park in order to access the attraction.

This would add significantly to the recognised existing problems with traffic and parking in and around Elterwater, including parking on the Common, caused primarily by high volumes of private vehicles. This in turn will harm the landscape and settlement character, tranquillity and special qualities of the area, as well as the enjoyment of these by visitors and locals alike. The same issues often compromise residents’ ability to go about their daily lives.

…

There is a need in this case to apply the Sandford principle in that the proposal is for a tourist attraction. Where there is irreconcilable conflict between the two, the primary National Park purpose to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Lake District National Park must be given greater weight than the second purpose of promoting opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Park. Considering the potential harms identified, and specifically the effects of increased traffic and parking on landscape and settlement character and tranquillity in and around Elterwater, without changes and further assurances and information, this proposal would put the second purpose before the first and the proposal is therefore in conflict with policy 01”.

In their letter of 31 January 2024 setting out their further representations on the planning application, the Claimant stated that they maintained their objection to the development. Their reasons for so doing largely remained as set out in their letter of 24 February 2023, which they asked to be considered alongside their later response. The Claimant also expanded on a number of their points of concern, including –

The Claimant made the following comments in relation to the impact of the development on landscape character –

“In relation to Policy 05, our views on landscape character impacts remain and our earlier comments on this should be taken into account.

Although touched on in the reasons for refusal in the decision notice for the earlier iteration, having been present at the planning committee meeting at which it was decided, we do not consider that the impacts of additional traffic on landscape character, including tranquillity, were given enough consideration. Rather, the suggestion was made that because the proposal is largely within a quarry cavern and existing building, it could not impact negatively on the landscape.

The proposal directly contradicts several of the characteristics and recommendations set out in the Landscape Character Area, with several aspects of the landscape character of this area cited as being highly vulnerable to increased traffic, parked cars and visitor numbers, noise, lighting and movement, as well as any associated new or upgraded infrastructure such as signage and access points/routes. To avoid significant harm to these landscape characteristics it must be ensured that visitor numbers combined with the transport modes used, do not have negative impacts. Without very careful management and very innovative, effective means of controlling traffic and transport impacts, this proposal is not acceptable within the parameters of the Local Plan and LDNP Management Plan”.

The Claimant reiterated their contention that the harmful impacts of the development were such that it was in conflict with the Sandford principle –

“… it remains our position that this location is not appropriate for this type of development and the proposal does not accord with policies 02, 05, 18, 19 or 21. Issues remain with the principle as well as with aspects of detail.

This includes the impact of the proposal on traffic, travel and vehicle movements, the impact of additional traffic, vehicles and visitors on the tranquillity and rural character of the area and, in turn, the impact of this on the special qualities of the area, the National Park purposes, and the experience of visitors, who come to the Lake District to understand and enjoy its special qualities. These impacts also affect residents and communities. It also includes the nature of the proposal and impacts of this on English Lake District World Heritage Site attributes, including intangible cultural heritage. As a result of these impacts, the proposal conflicts with the Sandford principle”.