Parish council fails in Planning Court challenge to grant of permission for camp site

Mr Justice Mould ruled in the High Court that Wadhurst Parish Council had failed in its case against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Wealden District Council and developer Elite Leisure (Solomans UK).

Wadhurst had applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 over an inspector’s decision to allow two planning appeals by Elite Leisure following Wealden’s original rejection of its application.

Elite Leisure sought planning permission for the change of use of three parcels of land at Bewl Water to seasonal use as a campsite for up to 80 pitches and for the erection of a temporary cabin, both between the months of April and September.

A second application was for the erection of four yurts and retention of a toilet and washroom for year-round occupation.

Bewl Water is a reservoir open to the public with various leisure facilities and some 140,000 day visitors annually.

The parish council said the site needed protection as a wildlife habitat and because of the impact of the proposed developments on the protected landscape of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) named the High Weald National Landscape,

It sought judicial review by claiming the inspector erred in his approach to his duty under section 85(A1)of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The parish council said he should have considered whether granting planning permission would further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the AONB.

The second ground was that the inspector failed to have proper regard to, or properly to understand or apply, the policy of the High Weald AONB Management Plan (NWMP) 2024-2029. The parish council said the inspector’s reasons raised a substantial doubt as to whether he had done so.

Mould J said the inspector found the main issue for both appeals was their effect on the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape, and on biodiversity with particular reference to winter roosting common and black-headed gulls.

He said: “It is clear from the inspector's reasons that he did have proper regard to that objective of the HWMP…he gave careful consideration not only to the effect of the proposed development on the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, but also to the extent, if any, to which seasonal occupation of the camping site and the yurts would diminish the tranquillity and unspoilt rurality of the surrounding countryside through noise and light pollution. He imposed conditions to ensure that those characteristics of the AONB would be safeguarded.”

The inspector’s reasons did not “leave any doubt as to his conclusion that the proposed development would not harm the natural beauty of the AONB” and it was clear he considered the impact on the AONB, the judge said.

He said Wadhurst’s second ground depended on failing to read the inspector’s reasons as a whole.

“The clear impression created by the inspector's reasoning…is that he had the particular provisions of the HWMP on which the claimant relies very much in mind,” Mould J aid.

“I do not read [the decision letter] as adopting a policy position on the impact of camping development in the AONB which is at odds with that stated in the HWMP..”

The inspector “gave clear and cogent reasons for concluding that the proposed use of the appeal sites for seasonal spring and summer camping and glamping – occupation of the yurts – would not be urbanising in the sense given by the HWMP”, Mould J found.

Bewl Water already operates as a visitor attraction and visitors would not be surprised to see a seasonal camping site with tents and camper vans.

Mould J concluded the inspector had not misunderstood the policy on preventing urbanising development, but had “turned his mind to the much narrower question whether such development in the particular context of the appeal sites and their immediate surroundings will have that harmful impact.

"That was quite properly a matter for his planning judgment. He has given proper and adequate reasons for concluding that the proposed development would not do so.”

Mark Smulian