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

For the Claimant, Mr Brendan Brett focused on Ms Hunt’s assertion that providing public access to the quarry and introducing visitors to the Lake District’s industrial heritage would enhance the cultural heritage of the National Park. It was submitted that assertion confused the statutory purposes under section 5(1) of the 1949 Act and had led the Committee into legal error. On a true construction of section 5(1), the provision of public access and promotion of better understanding of a heritage asset can only be taken to further the second statutory purpose. Ms Hunt’s suggestion that those benefits might further the first statutory purpose by enhancing cultural heritage was irrational.

Mr Brett contended that Ms Hunt’s intervention will have carried weight with her fellow Committee members, as she was the Chair of the Defendant and accordingly a person of authority. Moreover, Ms Hunt prefaced her intervention by asserting that she had very considerable experience and expertise in the application of the Sandford principle. It was submitted that Ms Hunt’s erroneous comments were material to the Committee’s decision to grant the planning permission. The Committee was tied at three votes each in favour and against approval of the planning application. The decision to grant rested only on the casting vote of the Chair, Mr Kidd.