“the conversion of dwellings and associated outbuildings and land to Hotel / Restaurant (28 rooms) (Class C1 / A3) and associated facilities including staff accommodation and provision of parking spaces (68). Single storey extension and alterations to Madehurst Lodge (after removal of veranda), Reconstruction of the former Garden Lodge, erection of single storey building (in Walled Garden) to form treatment rooms, erection of single storey building to form hotel accommodation (referred to as the Chicken Coop) and the erection of storage sheds and bike stores. External alterations to Stable Block, Grooms House and Chicken Shack.”
“Excessive legalism has no place in the planning system, or in proceedings before the Planning Court, or in subsequent appeals to this court. The court should always resist over-complication of concepts that are basically simple. Planning decision-making is far from being a mechanical, or quasi-mathematical activity. It is essentially a flexible process, not rigid or formulaic. It involves, largely, an exercise of planning judgment, in which the decision-maker must understand relevant national and local policy correctly and apply it lawfully to the particular facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in accordance with the requirements of the statutory scheme. The duties imposed by section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act leave with the decision-maker a wide discretion. The making of a planning decision is, therefore, quite different from the adjudication by a court on an issue of law (see paragraphs 8 to 14, 22 and 35 above).”
“Democratically elected bodies go about their decision-making in a different way from courts. They have professional advisers who investigate and report to them. Those reports obviously have to be clear and full enough to enable them to understand the issues and make up their minds within the limits that the law allows them. But the courts should not impose too demanding a standard upon such reports, for otherwise their whole purpose will be defeated: the councillors either will not read them or will not have a clear enough grasp of the issues to make a decision for themselves. It is their job, and not the court's, to weigh the competing public and private interests involved.”
“23… I set out below a set of principles … to be applied by decision makers when determining whether an application is for “major development”. 24. First, the overarching principle is that the determination of whether a proposal amounts to “major development” for the purposes of paragraph 116 of the NPPF is a matter of planning judgment to be decided by the decision maker in light of all the circumstances of the application and the context of the application site. 25. Secondly, the phrase “major development” is to be given its ordinary meaning. Accordingly, it would be wrong in law to: a. Apply the definition of major development contained in the 2010 Order to paragraph 116 of the NPPF; b. Apply any set or rigid criteria to defining “major development”; c. Restrict the definition to proposals that raise issues of national significance. 26. Thirdly, in making a determination as to whether the development is “major development”, the decision maker may consider whether the development has the potential to have a serious adverse impact on the natural beauty and recreational opportunities provided by a National Park or AONB by reason of its scale, character or nature. However, that does not require (and ought not to include) an in-depth consideration of whether the development will in fact have such an impact. Instead, a prima facie assessment of the potential for such impact, in light of the scale, character or nature of the proposed development is sufficient. 27. Fourthly, as a matter of planning judgement, the decision maker must consider the application in its local context. This is made clear in the PPG, but also appears implicit in the caselaw. In Forge Field, for instance, Lindblom J noted that “major developments” would normally be projects much larger than six dwellings on a site the size of Forge Field.”
“115. Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. 116. Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: • the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy • the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way • any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.” • the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy • the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way • any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”
“Whether a proposed development in these designated areas should be treated as a major development, to which the policy in paragraph 116 of the Framework applies, will be a matter for the relevant decision taker, taking into account the proposal in question and the local context.”
“7.6 Paragraph 116 states that planning permission should be refused for major developments within designated areas such as the National Park except in exceptional circumstance and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration then has to be given as to whether this proposal is a ‘major development’ as referred to in paragraph 116 of the NPPF when considering the principle of development. 7.7 The NPPF does not provide a definition of what constitutes ‘major development’. The Authority has sought legal advice on the definition of major development from James Maurici QC, the most recent guidance being given in October 2014. The Maurici legal opinion provides guidance on the definition of major development within National Parks. The opinion advises that major development is any development which, by reason of its scale character and nature, has the potential to have a serious adverse impact on the natural beauty, recreational opportunities, wildlife or cultural heritage provided by a National Park. Obviously, the assessment of whether the proposal is major is therefore a matter of judgement based on all the circumstances, including the local context. 7.8 In this instance, it is considered that the physical proposed changes to the existing buildings and new buildings/structure are relatively modest in scale and the potential impacts resulting from the use of the development are localised. As such, it is not considered this proposal constitutes ‘major development’ for the purposes of paragraph 116 of the NPPF and therefore it is not necessary to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstance in the public interest. The assessment set out in section 8 does consider the land use, landscape and heritage implications of the proposal.”
“The application of criteria such as whether the development is …. “major development” for the purposes of the 2010 Order … will all be relevant considerations, but will not determine the matter and may not even raise a presumption either way.”
“Historic England has some concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 129, 132 and 134 of the NPPF. We recommend that the [Defendant] assesses the full detail of the proposals in relation to national and local planning policy and with due regard to any public benefits that would be delivered by the development.”
“The following relevant considerations are overlooked: whether the surrounding area is rural, residential or urbanised, whether there are other similar hotel or restaurant developments nearby, the extent and nature of other development in the area, the size of that area or the previous use of the site.”
“In my view the result is that if one of the alternatives would secure the optimum viable use, and another only a viable use, not only does that have to be taken into account in determining an application but it provides a compelling basis for refusing permission for the non-optimum viable proposal.”