High Court rejects judicial review claim over permission for Lake District zipline

In Friends of the Lake District v Lake District National Park Authority [2025] EWHC 2630 (Admin) (15 October 2025), Mr Justice Mould rejected the case brought by ‘Friends of the Lake District’ on all three grounds, finding that no errors were made by the LDNPA when making the decision.

Outlining the case background, the judge noted that the Interested Party, Burlington Slate, submitted its application for planning permission for the development on 20 December 2023.

The Lake District National Park Authority’s Development Control Committee resolved to grant the planning permission at their meeting held on 1 May 2024. The planning permission was issued on 3 May 2024.

Elterwater Quarry is a working quarry operated by Burlington Slate and located in the Langdale Valley.

The judge noted: “The quarry is a long-established minerals site with a complex of underground caverns, quarry voids, benches, faces and waste tips. The development would involve the introduction of a fixed-line route connecting viewing platforms with a cavern, using zip-wires to provide access to viewpoints and features of interest to visitors. Existing buildings within the quarry site would be adapted for use as part of the tourist attraction.”

The quarry, the village and the surrounding area including the Langdale Valley are situated at the heart of the Lake District National Park. The whole area of the Lake District National Park was inscribed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in 2017.

The claimant, ‘Friends of the Lake District’, is a charitable and membership organisation which promotes the protection and conservation of the landscape and natural beauty of the Lake District and the county of Cumbria as a whole.

In January 2024, the claimant wrote to the National Park Authority raising extensive objections to the Interested Party's planning application.

In May 2024, the claimant brought the claim for judicial review of the grant of the planning permission.

In July 2024, Lang J gave permission for the claim to proceed on the following grounds:

(1) The defendant's decision was vitiated by the legally erroneous approach of a senior member of the Committee, Tiffany Hunt, to the application of the Sandford principle, which is given legal effect by section 11A(1A) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

(2) In the report, the defendant's Committee were given materially misleading advice by the planning officer in relation to the efficacy of condition 9 imposed on the planning permission and the ability of the Defendant to enforce the measures proposed in the Interested Party's submitted travel plan. As a result, the Defendant's Committee took account of an immaterial consideration when they resolved to grant planning permission.

(3) The Defendant's Committee based their decision to grant planning permission on advice given by the planning officer that no harm to the landscape would result from the increased traffic on local roads generated by the development. That advice was irrational, founded upon a misinterpretation of relevant planning policy and failed to take account of a material consideration.

In April 2025, the claimant filed an application notice seeking permission to amend its claim by introducing a further ground of challenge:

(1A) The Defendant erred in law in its interpretation and application of the Sandford principle.

The Sandford principle derives from a report in 1974 of the National Park Policies Review Committee chaired by Lord Sandford, which included the following advice –

"2.15 The first purpose of national parks, as stated by Dower and by Parliament - the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty - seems to us to remain entirely valid and appropriate. The second purpose - the promotion of public enjoyment - however, needs to be re-interpreted and qualified because it is now evident that excessive or unsuitable use may destroy the very qualities that attract people to the parks. We have no doubt that where the conflict between the two purposes, which has always been inherent, becomes acute, the first one must prevail in order that the beauty and ecological qualities of the national parks may be maintained".

Considering ground 1, Mr Justice Mould found the principle was correctly stated in the report prepared ahead of the decision by the LDNPA's planning committee.

He said: “Read in context, it is clear that Ms Hunt neither misunderstood the Sandford principle nor made a legally erroneous statement to her Committee colleagues on its application. In any event, the Sandford principle was correctly stated in the Report for the benefit of members of the Committee who, the record shows, had a clear and correct understanding of what the principle required of them in determining the planning application.

“They reminded themselves of the Sandford principle during the course of their discussion of the planning application. The claimant's contention that the Committee was misled into error in applying the Sandford principle when they decided to grant the planning permission cannot be sustained.”

In relation to ground 1A, the judge refused permission to amend the grounds of claim.

On ground 2, counsel for the claimant submitted that of central importance both to the planning officer's recommendation to approve the planning application and the Committee's acceptance of that recommendation was the planning officer's advice in paragraph 5.33 of the Report, that the measures proposed in the revised Travel Plan and committed to in the Travel Plan Commitment statement can be secured through the imposition of a planning condition.

It was submitted that, properly construed, condition 9 of the planning permission failed to secure the delivery of those measures and to ensure that the development would operate effectively in accordance with the controls proposed under the revised Travel Plan. Given that the need for effective control of the traffic and transport impacts of the development had been of critical importance to the Committee's decision to grant planning permission, the planning officer's advice was both “erroneous and materially misleading”.

On a proper understanding of the terms of condition 9, that condition would not enable the Defendant to enforce effective control of operation of the development.

Discussing ground 2, Mr Justice Mould said: “Condition 9 requires the operator to submit a Travel Plan for approval prior to first use of the development. The terms of condition 9 are clear both as to the requisite components of the Travel Plan and the timing of its submission for approval.

“[…] I see no obvious difficulty in taking enforcement action to secure compliance with those requirements. The requirement to incorporate the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement in the Travel Plan is stated in clear and precise terms. The deadline for submission of the Travel Plan is stated by reference to a readily ascertainable event. In the event that the operator were to begin to operate the tourist attraction at the quarry without having first submitted a Travel Plan for approval which at least incorporated the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement (March 2016), they would be in breach of condition 9 and liable to enforcement action.”

He concluded: “I reject the Claimant's contention that the planning officer's advice to the Committee was materially misleading. The main thrust of the planning officer's advice was that the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement were robust, achievable and their implementation could be secured by condition. For that purpose, she proposed a draft condition, which in its somewhat extended terms was later imposed as condition 9 of the planning permission.

“On a proper analysis of the terms of condition 9, it does have effect to secure the implementation of the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement. The Travel Plan to be submitted by the operator prior to first use of the development for approval must incorporate those measures. Following approval of the Travel Plan, those measures must be implemented by the operator within 6 months of first use of the development. The development is to be operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. Each of those specific requirements of condition 9 is capable of being enforced by the Defendant.

“On a proper understanding of its terms, condition 9 does enable the Defendant to enforce effective control of operation of the development through securing the implementation of those measures which, on the planning officer's advice, would result in the acceptable operation of the proposed tourist attraction in terms of movement and activity.”

On ground 3, the claimant's first contention was that the national park authority failed to address the impacts of increased traffic resulting from operation of the development on the tranquillity, remoteness and isolation of the Langdale Valley.

The claimant's second contention was that the planning officer's advice to committee, that the increased traffic movements from operation of the development would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape, was “irrational”.

Lastly, the claimant contended that in advising in paragraph 5.38 of the Report that the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement offered as much as an individual developer could reasonably achieve, the planning officer had addressed the “wrong question”. The relevant question was whether, allowing for the operation of the development in accordance with those measures, the impact on the landscape of the Langdale Valley of the increased traffic and activity resulting from the development was acceptable.

The judge found that the contentions under ground 3 lacked merit. He said: “There is no doubt that the planning officer did take into account and reach a planning judgment as to the impact of increased traffic and movement resulting from the development on the landscape of the Langdale Valley, recognising as she did that the valley was characterised by its by its tranquillity, remoteness and sense of isolation. She was not required to extend an already lengthy report by spelling out again that the landscape hereabouts was so characterised.

“It is clear […] that the planning officer recognised the need to assess and form a judgment whether the impact of the increased traffic and activity resulting from the development was acceptable in impacts, particularly on the landscape of the Langdale Valley. It is, moreover, clear that in making that assessment, the planning officer asked herself whether the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement to promote modal shift to more sustainable modes of transport than the private car were both robust and achievable.”

Mr Justice Mould rejected the case on all three grounds, finding that no errors were made by the LDNPA when making the decision.

In a statement, Friends of the Lake District said it was “disappointed” with the outcome, noting that “with our legal advisers, we are considering the implications of the judgement and whether to appeal”.

Lottie Winson