Ardleigh Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council

Protection afforded by paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework to development within the setting of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty concerns adverse impacts on the designated area. It does not protect the landscape and scenic beauty of land outside the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for its own sake. An officer’s report is not materially misleading merely because it omits particular policy references where the report has addressed the relevant impacts and has not identified material adverse impacts on the designated area. Planning policies concerning settlement hierarchy and settlement boundaries may leave the ultimate decision to the local planning authority’s planning judgment.

Ardleigh Parish Council sought permission to apply for judicial review of Tendring District Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a large food and storage distribution facility, associated parking, a logistics yard and offices in a rural area of Ardleigh, Essex.

Ground 1 alleged that the Council had failed to consider the development’s effect on the setting of the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and had failed to apply paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Ground 2 alleged that the Council had failed to apply local policies concerning settlement hierarchy and settlement development boundaries.

1. Ground 1: Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework afforded protection to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty itself. Development in its setting had to be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated area, but the paragraph did not protect the landscape and scenic beauty of areas outside the designated area for their own sake.
2. The site was approximately 1.2 kilometres from the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and contributed to its setting. The officer’s report addressed the relevant evidence, including the absence of inter-visibility, possible HGV traffic and lighting. The report’s conclusion that there was no conflict with Policy PPL3 in relation to long-distance views and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was open to the Council. The omissions of express references to paragraph 176, the relevant Planning Practice Guidance passage and part of the management plan were not seriously misleading in a material way.
3. Ground 2: Policies SPL1 and SPL2 had been considered in the officer’s report and supplementary report. Those policies did not impose the strict constraints on development outside settlement boundaries contended for by the claimant. The absence of suitable alternative allocated sites meant that the question whether to grant permission was ultimately a matter for the Council’s planning judgment.
4. Neither ground was arguable and neither had a realistic prospect of success. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of preparing the acknowledgment of service, including pre-action correspondence, and the costs of amending the claim, but not the defendant’s costs of attending the oral permission hearing.