7 things we learnt after a year of legal action
Published: 22 September 2025
In December 2023, the UK Parliament changed the law to better protect National Parks and National Landscapes.
This groundbreaking legislation had cross party support and has been championed by this Government. We, at Campaign for National Parks, agree with a wide range of organisations (including the RSPB, Defra, Natural England, National Park Authorities, the National Landscape Association and more) that this is a truly transformational piece of legislation, fundamental for driving nature recovery.
Section 245 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, Parliament amended the founding legislation for National Parks and National Landscapes. It took out the pre-existing (and incredibly weak) words “have regard to” and instead placed a duty on all public bodies to “seek to further” the purposes of Protected Landscapes. It was a small change in words that makes an outsize impact: mandating that thousands of public bodies including local authorities, water companies and government quangos consider how they “further” the conservation and enhancement of wildlife, natural beauty, cultural heritage and public enjoyment in the decisions they make.
Job done? Not quite, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it is how the law is implemented, and ultimately, how it is interpreted by the Courts to force action, that will make the real difference.
Over the last year, Campaign for National Parks has been on the case, thanks to our Legal Fighting Fund supporters and the help of our legal team at Leigh Day and Counsel Alex Shattock at Landmark Chambers. We have intervened to give evidence in two High Court cases, and followed two others very closely, to influence and understand how the Courts have interpreted this new law. Together, these four cases, which relate to the New Forest National Park, the Dedham Vale and the High Weald National Landscapes, have set an important legal precedent for how the law will be interpreted and the difference it will make for wildlife and natural beauty.
So, what did we learn from the Judge’s verdict on these cases?
1. Ignore this new duty at your peril
Our first case, intervening on the judicial review taken by the Dedham Vale Society made clear: public bodies cannot ignore the Protected Landscapes duty. This early win set an important precedent, after the UK Government admitted defeat and making “an error in law” by failing to apply the Protected Landscapes duty when making planning decisions. The case helped raise awareness, making clear to others in Government and the Planning Inspectorate that the law is in force now and they needed to recognise the change.
2. All agree the law has been “strengthened”
In the first case that went before the High Court (concerning a planning application in the New Forest), the judge concluded that a “change from a requirement to have regard to the statutory purposes, to being required to seek to further those purposes” [is] providing a “strengthened duty”. In the subsequent CPRE Kent case (regarding a housing development in the High Weald, which we also intervened in), all of the parties, including housing developers and the Housing Secretary of State, agreed that the law has been strengthened. It marks an important shift, strengthening protection for both National Parks and National Landscapes.
3. It’s an “active duty” and a “broad duty”
The Courts made clear that this strengthened duty has to “achieve outcomes” and is very broad in nature: it applies to ALL public bodies and ANY decision they make that could impact the National Parks and Landscapes. This is particularly important for beyond the planning sphere, where to date, there had been no process or requirements for public bodies to act.
4. High Court backs Defra guidance
In the CPRE Kent case (regarding a housing development in the High Weald), the judge endorsed the guidance published last year on 75th anniversary of the founding of National Parks. The judge made clear that his approach to complying with the duty is “essentially reflected in the guidance issued by Defra”. If public bodies follow the guidance, they will comply with the law.
5. The duty does not cut across the existing planning system
In the New Forest case, the judge made clear that the duty requires more than merely weighing the effect of the proposed development on the [purposes] in the overall balance”. Instead they must: determine whether the development furthers the purposes, and if not, “consider whether the proposed
development may be mitigated in order to address the identified conflict with the statutory purposes. They may need to consider whether any compensatory measures are available which might offset the identified conflict with the statutory purposes. They will need to consider the imposition of conditions or the need to obtain planning obligations to secure such measures.” In the Ticehurst Parish Council case (about a separate development in the High Weald), the judge made clear that the duty requires the public bodies to give “great weight” to pursuing the purposes when discharging their core functions (drawing parallels with the National Planning Policy Framework). In the CPRE Kent case, the judge made clear that the duty does not require that planning permission be automatically refused if a development would cause harm to the landscape. All of this suggests that the new duty can work alongside and reinforced existing planning policy. The judgements also suggest that the far bigger impact will be on sectors other than planning (such as water), where National Parks and National Landscapes are not given great weight (or any weight!) as part of decision making.
6. The promised regulations are super important
The precedents set by the Courts so far could be superseded by new regulations. Section 245 also gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations specifying the things that public bodies “may, must or must not do to comply with the duty”. The intention here was to bolster the law even further to mandate specific requirements on different public bodies. The Court recognised that these regulations have not yet been made. Given the words “seek to further” do not appear in any other legislation, regulations would be helpful to clarity Government’s intent.
7. Defra have promised to change the legal purposes of National Parks and Landscapes: they’d do well to consider these judgements, given case law is limiting the original intent.
National Parks law refers to “conserving and enhancing” wildlife, natural beauty and cultural heritage. As our Health Check shows, conservation is not enough: we need to recover nature across these landscapes. However, concerningly, in the New Forest case, the judge concluded that doing “no harm” is sufficient – case law precedent that there is no need in the Court’s view to also demonstrate a positive act of enhancement. Defra should therefore look to revise this wording to signal to the Courts that “enhancement” and nature recovery is a clear intention. Similarly, the legal reading of the words “natural beauty” in the High Weald case was clear that the Court viewed it to be synonymous with “scenic beauty” (the importance of nature and wildlife intended by legislators in 1949 has been obscured). Taken together, these judgements show how important it is to reform the purposes and prioritise nature recovery, as Government has promised to do.
What’s next for Campaign for National Parks?
This law is incredibly important: it is the main tool to enable positive change across Protected Landscapes. Defra recognises “that we can, and must, go further within Protected Landscapes than other areas to meet our national environmental targets, including 30 by 30”. The duty is critical – and can drive change in how public bodies manage land, water, forestry and ensure a wide range of decisions, from transport to tourism, can further protect National Parks.
Over the coming months, Campaign for National Parks will continue to champion the duty. We will look closely at how it is being implemented, show how it can clean up rivers and continue to push for the promised regulations. As a campaigning charity, legal action is a key tool, and one we will continue to use if needed. But the conclusion from the Courts so far is clear: if public bodies read the guidance, consider the duty early in their decision making, and follow the steps set out, there is a lot to gain and no need for the Courts to get involved.