Meyrick Estate Management Ltd and others (Claimants) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defendant) Country/Territory United Kingdom Type of court Others Date Nov 3, 2005 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name High Court of Justice Seat of court London Judge Sullivan Reference number [2005] EWHC 2618 (Admin) Language English Subject Wild species & ecosystems, Legal questions Keyword Expropriation Land tenure National parks Abstract This was an application under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to quash the New Forest National Park (Designation) Order 2002 by the Countryside Agency, in so far as the order related to Hinton Park. Hinton Park is part of the Hinton Estate, a large private estate. Most of the main part of the estate was within the National Park boundary proposed in the Order. The claimants suggested that the boundary of the National Park should be modified so as to exclude Hinton Park because the Agency had misapplied the "natural beauty" criterion in paragraph (a) of subsection 5(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and because the areas in question did not afford "opportunities for open-air recreation" as required by paragraph (b) of subsection 5(2). The designation would not have been lawful unless both of these criteria were met. The Court analyzed the criterion of “natural beauty”. It concluded that the Agency had interpreted the term “natural beauty” too wide. It emphasized that the question was not what factors should, as a matter of good countryside planning practice in the 21st century, be taken into consideration in designating a National Park, but what factors could lawfully be taken into consideration under an enactment that was now over 55 years old. It could well be the case that "more modern" legislation would not be satisfied with a narrow concept of "natural beauty". As an example of a more up-to-date approach to countryside planning the claimants mentioned the provisions of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, which provides that an area may be designated for "outstanding national importance because of its natural heritage or a combination of its natural and cultural heritage". Parliament had the opportunity to amend the term in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 if it had wished to do so and embrace wider considerations such as "cultural heritage". It did not. Change had to be effected by Parliament, and not by administrative action on the part of the Agency in adopting a wider range of factors for the purposes of designation. The Claimants also argued that large parts of the Hinton Estate had been included within the Designation Order area notwithstanding the non-existence of public rights of way. Furthermore, as these areas comprised parkland, woodland and agricultural land they were not eligible for public access rights and therefore did not provide “opportunities for open-air recreation”. The Court emphasized that it was possible for the Agency to look to the future, and that consideration was not limited to the present facilities for open air recreation, for example the existing network of footpaths and bridleways. However, the Agency could not water down the statutory requirement by applying a vague test such as "potential scope" or "potential opportunities" instead of “opportunities for open-air recreation”. The Court therefore granted the application and quashed the order in so far as it affected the claimant’s land. Full text meyrick_v_enviro_1105.htm