Appeal 6001062

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part E Class 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) planning permission is granted for the erection of a building reasonably necessary for the purposes of forestry on land used for the purposes of forestry subject to limitations and conditions.

[name].2 requires the developer to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval of the authority will be required in relation to the siting, design and external appearance of the building. The Council determined that the proposed development is not considered to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of forestry and refused to grant prior approval.

The appeal was accompanied by a felling licence for silvicultural thinning to improve the quality and vigour of the remaining trees, removing no more than 30% of the canopy cover evenly across the compartment/woodland over four years up to July 2030. This does not change the proposal but assists in explaining it, and I have taken it into account in reaching my decision.

The main issues are: whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the GPDO, having regard to whether the development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of forestry; and if so, whether prior approval should be granted for the siting, design and external appearance of the building.

The [site address] appeal site is some 3.5 hectares and contains the former Dartmoor and [name] (the Mine). The woodland is of mixed deciduous and evergreen species which supports a range of wildlife. It contains occasional older trees with younger naturalised pioneer species and a natural woody plant understory together with a mature forestry plantation. It lacked effective management for many years. Overall the trees are in good health, although there are some in dead and others in poor health. There are a number of tracks and path ways within the site. The roadside boundary is bordered by a stone faced Devon hedge bank along which grows a line of mature beech trees.

Forestry is not defined in the GDPO. However there is no doubt that activities such as woodland management, timber production and primary processing of timber products as an ancillary activity amount to forestry. A draft Woodland Management Plan 31 March 2025 to 31 March 2035 (the WMP) has been prepared for the approval of the Forestry Commission.

This describes the appellant’s preferred use of traditional techniques rather than highly mechanised methods to create a thriving woodland, nature corridor and wildlife haven resilient to the effects of climate change. Such an approach, where volunteers can visit and carry out forestry work and gain traditional woodland management skills, can be labour intensive. Space would therefore reasonably needed for welfare facilities; for talks and briefings; and for storage tools, equipment, coppiced wood and products such as fence posts, walking sticks, kindling and logs.

A list of tools and machinery required to be stored has been provided, some of which I observed on site in ad-hoc storage arrangements. These are not unreasonable items for forestry activities, even though more sets may be required by the volunteer style management method than may otherwise be the case.

The building would be about 10.8m by 7.2m and 5.2m to the ridge although additional space would be utilised under the eaves for firewood and some equipment storage. It is intended to provide waterproof storage and welfare facilities throughout the year for activities such as coppicing, thinning, and making of basic woodland products.

The Council has reservations as to whether a building of the size proposed is necessary for day to day tasks. It is considered that it should be perfectly feasible to bring tools such as chainsaws onto the site when required and advises that tools stored on site may be prone to theft.

I see no reason to doubt that the forestry related equipment is frequently used and it seems impracticable to transport much of it to site on a regular basis or to rely on the manager of the woodland to live nearby. I find it is not unreasonable to want appropriate, secure, storage in a convenient location close to the forestry activities taking place.

However, the enterprise also includes education, habitat improvement and community involvement in the woodland and in revealing the historical significance of the Mine and the site would be opened occasionally for public visits. These are all laudable aims and the appellant is very enthusiastic about the care and management of the woodland and the heritage of the Mine but in my judgement the proposed uses go well beyond being reasonably necessary for forestry.

There is no requirement in the GPDO for a particular management process to justify whether the building would be reasonably required; there is no definition of a minimum size of holding to which Class E rights apply; there is no requirement for a detailed management plan; and applications can be prospective of future needs. Nevertheless it would be illogical to totally exclude considerations of scale in establishing whether a specific proposed building would be reasonably necessary for forestry on a specific holding. It all depends on a judgment of the circumstances of the case.

The WMP describe non-forestry activities as well as forestry activities and there are some contradictions as to the extent of wood yield. The table accompanying the WMP estimates the total volume m3 (BDiv/Con) up to 2033/34 at some 135 m3. The approved Licence estimates the yield at some 190 m3 up to July 2030. The Supporting Statement from [address], a trusted Woodland Consultant, refers to a yield of 620 m3. This figure does not appear in the provided draft WMP but based on this it is estimated that covered storage of some 30 m3 pa over the WMP period would be required for seasoning of wood for added value products. However, this requirement would be much less for the other figures. In any event the building floor plan shows very little of the covered space would be available for wood storage.

The test under Class E is one of reasonable necessity rather than essentiality. Even so, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the scale and purpose of the building as proposed is reasonably necessary for the forestry activities described.

Therefore, in my judgement of the circumstances of this case, the proposed building cannot be considered as permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6 Class E of the GPDO.

The ruined engine house and chimney of the Mine are a Grade II Listed Building and the site is in the Dartmoor National Park. However, given that the proposal is not permitted development, there is no need in this appeal to consider further these, or other matters of siting, appearance or design, including matters addressed in the Ecological Impact Assessment; the [name] & [name] or the Heritage Statement.

There are other buildings in the surrounding area including what appears to be a relatively new building on the edge of the appeal site away from the roadside boundary. However, no evidence about the planning status of these has been provided.

The appellant has referred to a number of other cases1 in support of the proposal. Most of these relate to agricultural buildings rather than forestry but I have taken account of the approaches in them to “reasonably required”. However, they relate to much larger holdings/enterprises and do not lead me to any different conclusion in respect of the appeal before me. 1 APP/P0119/W/15/3003480; APP/J9497/W/15/3140928; APP/A0665/W/24/3347017; APP/C1435/W/25/3367264; and APP/K1128/W/22/3298982 with APP/J9497/W/17/3168180 (Hillyfield)

The Hillyfield case appears the most similar in relying heavily on volunteers, who provide labour in exchange for the opportunity to spend time close to nature and learn new skills, and experience the beauty of Dartmoor. In that case the woodland extended to 11.8 hectares within a holding of some 19.8 hectares. The appellant has calculated that there would be a lower proportion of floor space per hectare for the building in that case compared to that of appeal before me. However, I have not seen the floor plans or calculations so I cannot assess how directly comparable the figures are. No information has been provided as to the extent of wood yield which is likely to be significantly greater than at [site address] and, unlike the proposal before me, activity appeared to be solely focused on forestry related activity. Accordingly, I do not find the Hillyfield appeal Decision leads me to a different conclusion in relation to the appeal before me.

The appellant has expressed dissatisfaction with the Council’s approach as he considers information cited by officers is inaccurate and out-of-date; that all objections raised have been addressed; and that the submitted professional reports have not been given respectful attention. Whilst the evidence indicates that the proposal before me, including professional reports, was prepared in an attempt to address concerns raised with the previous proposals, I have reached my own conclusions based on the evidence relating to the current appeal only.

I acknowledge the need for planning decisions to be consistent. In my experience it is rare that cases are totally comparable taking account of different circumstances such as the proposal, the evidence provided and the site location. In this case I find the other cases cited do not provide compelling reasons to reach a different conclusion in the appeal before me. None of the above are matters that are determinative in my conclusion as to whether the proposal benefits from permitted development rights.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the proposed development is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the GPDO. The appeal should be dismissed.