R (CPRE Kent) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
CPRE Kent is an important Planning Court judgment on the strengthened statutory duty for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty — now generally known as National Landscapes.
The case concerned 165 homes at Turnden, Cranbrook, within the High Weald AONB and the duty in section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2025] EWHC 1781 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 20th June 2025
- Judge
- Mr Justice Mould
- Case number
- AC-2024-LON-004265
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
The duty really was strengthened
The earlier statutory duty required relevant authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the protected landscape. Following the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the authority must instead seek to further that purpose.
Mould J accepted that this is a stronger and more active duty.
But the duty is not an absolute ban on harmful development
CPRE Kent argued that permission could not lawfully be granted for development which would cause any unavoidable harm to the natural beauty of the AONB. The Court rejected that interpretation.
The strengthened duty does not replace the statutory planning regime under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Planning applications still require an evaluative planning judgment in which the development plan and other material considerations are weighed.
Harm must be actively confronted
That does not reduce the new duty to mere wording. Where a proposed development would conflict with the conservation and enhancement purpose, the authority must grapple with that conflict and consider whether permission can nevertheless be justified consistently with its duty to seek to further the protected purpose.
The authority may need to consider changes to the scheme, mitigation, compensatory measures, planning conditions and planning obligations.
Reasons matter
Where permission is granted despite harm to a National Landscape, the decision should explain the authority’s approach sufficiently clearly to demonstrate that the strengthened duty has genuinely been addressed.
On the facts, the Secretary of State had done so. She had given great weight to the limited landscape harm, considered the compelling housing need, the emerging allocation, landscape and recreational benefits and the absence of identified alternatives. Her reasons were adequate.
Relationship with New Forest
Mould J followed his earlier reasoning in New Forest National Park Authority v Secretary of State [2025] EWHC 726 (Admin). The two decisions together are important early authorities on the strengthened protected-landscape duties introduced by the 2023 Act.
Why CPRE Kent matters
The case is particularly important for applications, appeals, plans and enforcement decisions affecting a National Landscape. The duty is stronger than a simple “have regard” duty, but it is not a standalone veto. The decision-maker must actively seek to further conservation and enhancement while still carrying out the statutory planning judgment Parliament requires.
Read the full CPRE Kent judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved Planning Court judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
CPRE Kent National Landscape Duty Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026