Zip-wires in caverns

The High Court has dismissed a claim brought by the Friends of the Lake District (Friends of the Lake District v Lake District National Park Authority [2025] EWHC 2630 (Admin) – here) arguing, among other things, that the Lake District National Park Authority (NPA) misdirected itself as to the meaning or application of the ‘Sandford principle’, as is now found in s.11A(1A) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (inserted by s.245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023).

The claim concerned the NPA’s decision to grant planning permission for the re-use of part of a working quarry as a visitor attraction, with zip-wires in the caverns, viewing platforms and other features of interest. A main issue was the impact on the National Park and Lake District World Heritage Site of an increase in movement on and off the site caused by the development.

The claimant raised four grounds, two of which concerned s.11A(1A).

First, it argued that the Chair of the NPA – who was on the planning committee that approved the development – misunderstood the Sandford principle and mislead the committee by her comments in the debate that it could be said that the development “arguably … enhances the cultural heritage by providing access to a site that's never been open to the public before”. This was said irrationally to confuse the first purpose of national parks (conserving natural beauty and heritage (etc.)) with the second purposes (promoting public understanding and enjoyment), contrary to s.11A(1A) that provides that where there is a conflict, the NPA:

“must attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park of national parks”.

Mr Justice Mould held that read in context there was no error. The Sandford principle had been correctly set out in the officer’s report and at the committee meeting. The particular comments relied upon were “circumspect” and did “not express a decided view”.

Second, the claimant sought to amend its claim to argue an additional and more fundamental point on s.11A(1A), summarised in the judgment as follows:

“… the purpose of the Sandford principle, given statutory effect by section 11A(1A) of the 1949 Act, is to resolve the conflict between the two statutory purposes under section 5(1) of the 1949 Act where they cannot otherwise be reconciled … in order for that statutory preference to be given effect, the first purpose must always prevail over the second purpose.”

That argument was said to be supported by the High Court’s previous judgment in R (Stubbs) v Lake District NPA [2020] EWHC 2293 (Admin).

This was a case where the NPA had recognised harm to the National Park, in particular to cultural heritage from increased activity at the historic quarry site, so it was common ground that the Sandford principle was engaged.

Mould J refused permission to amend the claim to include this ground, including in the light of his view on its merits. He found that the argument was contrary to the language of s.11A(1A) (para.94), adding:

“95 … Parliament has chosen to tilt the balance in favour of furthering conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park over furthering the promotion opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the Park’s special qualities. The critical point being that under the clear terms of section 11A(1A) of the 1949 Act, it remains for the relevant authority to strike the balance in the exercise of its evaluative judgment, provided that in doing so the authority gives greater weight to the purpose of furthering the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.”

Weight being a matter for the decision-maker, it was open to the NPA “to conclude, that the benefits offered by the development in providing public access to and appreciation of the quarry as a feature of the Lake District’s industrial and cultural heritage nevertheless overrode the limited harm caused to that heritage asset by increased activity at the quarry site” (para.100).

The other grounds of claim concerned:

• The interpretation and effectiveness of a condition seeking to control traffic impacts (ground 2) (judgment paras.102-114)
• A number of points concerning the rationality of the conclusions in the officer’s report on tranquillity and the impact of increased traffic movements (ground 3) (judgment paras.115-129).

It has been suggested that the amendment made in s.11A(1A) – the duty to further National Park purposes – may be repealed (less than two years after it was inserted). The Sandford principle is more enduring – going back to 1971 (in policy) and 1995 (in law). However Friends of the Lake District is only the third case to consider the principle in any detail, and provides useful guidance on how it fits within the framework of planning decision-making.

Brendan Brett is a barrister at Francis Taylor Building and appeared for the claimant (instructed by Andrew Swaffer of Sharpe Pritchard).  Ned Westaway, also of Francis Taylor Building, appeared for the defendant (instructed by the Solicitor for the Lake District National Park Authority).