The NPPF and development within the setting of national landscapes

Jack Parker looks at the outcome of a recent case on the effect of the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to development within the setting of a National Landscape.

The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal following the refusal of permission to bring a claim for judicial review of the decision by Tendring District Council to grant planning permission for a large food storage and distribution facility on land within the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape, outside the village of Ardleigh, Essex: R (Ardleigh Parish Council) v Tendring District Council [2024] EWHC 648 (Admin) (Appeal Ref CA-2024-000513).

In so doing, the Court confirmed that the protection afforded to AONBs by paragraph 182 (previously 176) of the NPPF in respect of development within the setting of an AONB is to the designated area itself. To that end, development within the setting of an AONB should be located and designed to avoid impacts on the designated area. However, paragraph 182 does not seek to protect or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the setting of an AONB for its own sake.

It was recognised by the Council in its decision to grant permission that the scheme (on an unallocated site outside the village boundary) would give rise to landscape and amenity harm. Nonetheless, the Council determined that permission should be granted by reference to the benefits of the scheme and the absence of suitable alternative sites.

The Claimant challenged the decision on the basis that the Council failed to take into account the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the Dedham Vale National Landscape by reference to paragraph 182 of the NPPF which provides, among other things, that development within the setting of a National Landscape should be designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated area.

The development site was over 1km away from the boundary of the National Landscape. The Council had accepted that the development was within the setting of the National Landscape and that there would be local landscape character impacts but found that there would be no impact on the National Landscape itself. The Claimant argued that, as the development site was within the setting of the National Landscape, the finding that there would be local landscape impacts meant necessarily that there would be an impact on the setting of the National Landscape, so as to engage paragraph 182 of the NPPF.

The High Court, accepting the Council’s position, had rejected that argument, noting (at paragraph 6) that “the protection in para.176 of the Framework is only afforded to the AONB itself and so development in the setting of the AONB must avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the AONB. Para.176 does not protect the landscape and scenic beauty of areas outside the AONB for its own sake. I consider that the claimant’s case lost sight of this distinction in its submissions.”

The High Court had found that the Council had properly considered whether there would be any adverse impacts on the National Landscape by reason of development within its setting and concluded that there would not be. There was no arguable error in that judgment.

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal.

For a copy of the High Court Judgment, please click here.

Jack Parker of Cornerstone Barristers represented the successful defendant council.