Appeal 6000787

The appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for construction of a forestry access road to facilitate woodland management and timber extraction in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 25/01758/FORNOT.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as this better describes the development than the description on the application form.

Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order) provides that, subject to the provisions of the Order, planning permission is granted for the classes of development described as permitted in Schedule 2.

Part 6, Class E of the Order permits the carrying out on land used for forestry of development reasonably necessary for those purposes. Subsection (b) of Class E permits the formation, alteration, or maintenance of private ways.

Formation of private ways under Class E is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required for the siting and means of construction.

In light of the matters identified above, the main issue is whether the siting and means of construction of the private way is appropriate, having regard to highways impact.

The Council has not referenced development plan policies in its decision notice but have made reference to policies in their statement of case. The principle of development is established by the Order and the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E do not expressly or otherwise require determination of the appeal on the basis of the development plan. However, I have had regard to the policies of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as far as they are material considerations relevant to the matters of prior approval specified for Class E.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on reforms to the Framework. Whilst changes to the structure and wording are proposed, these could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

Before prior approval under Class E can be evaluated, it is necessary to determine whether or not the proposal falls to be considered as permitted development against the restrictions set out in E.1 of the Order. The Council accept that the development qualifies as permitted development, and I find nothing that contradicts this conclusion.

The private way proposed is a single section of track to be connected to an existing gravelled area. The existing access leads off Ropeway which is a residential estate road and has been designed to curve around the estate with areas of brick surfacing, raised sections and deflections. I observed at my visit that the road is wider than one car width but did not have a central white line to clearly define two-way traffic. Furthermore, I saw some on-street parking which would reduce the width along parts of the road.

The access to the proposal is between a small car park and a play area and at a point where the road is turning a corner. Contrary to the Council’s assertion the track is not off the car park; it would share the same access off Ropeway but to the side of the car park.

Although there is a section of existing track at this point, I have no compelling evidence that it has consent, or that the potential use for large forestry vehicles was assessed previously, as the appellant asserts. Nevertheless, it is outside of the appellant’s control and not part of the current proposal. I have assessed the appeal on the basis of proposing a section of track within the woodland which is to be finished with a stone and aggregate surface.

The Council has not questioned the need for the track or the need for the forestry works to be carried out, including cutting down of trees. Moreover, the appellant has confirmed that they have a felling licence and the removal of the trees is required for safety and biodiversity reasons.

The Council’s concerns relate to the siting of the track, accessed off Ropeway, and the suitability of the existing road for forestry vehicles. I accept that I do not have details of how the timber collection vehicles would manoeuvre within the site so as to be able to access and leave in a forward gear without bringing mud and gravel onto the road. However, I also have no compelling evidence that the vehicles would not be able to turn within the forestry land and the length of the track would reduce the risk of mud being transported to Ropeway. The proposed aggregate surface is also at least five metres from Ropeway which would mean that any gravel would be left on the existing section of track or the access to the car park. Furthermore, as noted in the Council’s statement, there are separate parts of the highways act which require developers to keep highways clear of mud and debris. Given these factors and the limited use of the proposal, in my judgement, it would not be reasonable or necessary to require a bound surface.

The width of Ropeway and the curvature and surface of the road would not be suitable for large numbers of large timber removal vehicles. Nevertheless, I also have no compelling evidence that Ropeway is not already used by large vehicles accessing the forestry site, for deliveries to houses and by waste collection and emergency vehicles. The appellant has confirmed that the proposal would result in approximately 20 timber vehicle movements per year and that signage would be erected when timber removal is to be carried out to make local residents aware.

Although timber collection vehicles would be clearly identifiable and different to any other large vehicle the number of vehicle movements would be limited. Moreover, the appellant has confirmed that they only have agreement with the housing developer, who, at the time of submission of the appeal, owned and maintained the road; to use 30 tonne vehicles and this would limit the size of the timber vehicles that can be used. I have not been provided with any evidence that the road has since been adopted or that this would alter the suitability of 30 tonne vehicles using it.

I am cognisant of the Council’s concerns, which are supported by their Highway consultee. However, given the limited number of vehicle movements, the restriction on the size of vehicles, that the existing roads can already be used by large vehicles, and that turning could be carried out within the appellant’s land, I find that the siting of the private way is appropriate, having regard to highways impact. It would, therefore, not conflict with the advice set out in the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users, create places that are safe, and minimising the risk of conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.

The Council’s Statement of Case refers to policies of the Local Transport Plan for Warwickshire (LTP4). For the same reasons given above, I find that the appeal proposal would not conflict with Policies F7, MS5, MS6, MV1, MV4 or ST4 of LTP4. Collectively these policies seek to encourage freight vehicles to use appropriate routes, require new highways to be built to best available standards, including the [name], and support development which provides safe access, which is convenient and fit for purpose for all its users.

The Order attaches standard conditions to this type of development at paragraph E.2(e) and (f), including that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted in the application and that the development must be completed within a period of 5 years, starting from the date on which the local planning authority were given the information for the prior approval application. I, therefore, have no reason to add any further conditions.

The scheme is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the Order. For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should succeed.