Wadhurst Parish Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

When determining planning appeals affecting an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the decision-maker must actively seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing its natural beauty. A finding that the proposed development will leave the relevant landscape unharmed may satisfy that duty. Planning conditions may properly be used to control noise, lighting and seasonal occupation so as to secure conservation. A reasons challenge succeeds only where the decision gives rise to substantial doubt that the inspector misunderstood the law, policy or a principal controversial issue, and substantial prejudice is shown. A management plan must be considered, but it does not require every form of camping or glamping to be treated as inherently harmful. The assessment remains one of planning judgment in the particular context.

The claimant parish council applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge an inspector’s decision allowing two appeals concerning a seasonal campsite, four yurts and associated facilities at Bewl Water, within the High Weald National Landscape.

The challenges alleged that the inspector had misunderstood or inadequately discharged the strengthened duty under section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and had failed properly to consider or apply the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024–2029. The central issues were whether the inspector had adequately assessed harm to the protected landscape and whether the management plan treated camping and glamping as inherently urbanising development.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision letter did not give rise to substantial doubt that he had misunderstood or failed to discharge the section 85(A1) duty.
2. The statutory and policy objective was to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the High Weald National Landscape. The inspector’s findings that the proposals would not intrude into or spoil the landscape, would not detract from tranquillity, and would not cause harmful light pollution sufficiently explained his conclusion that the natural beauty of the AONB would be conserved. In that context, granting permission furthered the statutory purpose.
3. The use of conditions requiring compliance with a noise management plan, seasonal occupation and an approved lighting scheme did not imply that the inspector had found harmful development. Conditions may be imposed to control effects which might otherwise cause harm and thereby secure conservation of the protected landscape.
4. The inspector was entitled to reach his own planning judgment on the evidence. The court would not re-evaluate the planning merits. The reasoning principles in St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the substantial-doubt approach in Palmer v Herefordshire Council were applicable.
5. The inspector had had proper regard to the High Weald Management Plan. Read as a whole, his decision did not treat camping and glamping as incapable of being urbanising development. He considered the narrower question whether this development, in its particular location and context, would erode rurality and tranquillity. His reasons, including limited visibility, the existing visitor attraction and the developed surroundings, were adequate.
6. The inspector’s witness statement was disregarded. It would rarely be appropriate for an inspector’s evidence to add substantively to the reasoning in the decision letter.

This was a first-instance statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The challenged decision was an inspector’s letter dated 13 January 2025 allowing two planning appeals under section 78 of that Act.