Appeal 6001592

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an agricultural barn to support vineyard at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1629/25/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Hams District Council. That application is the subject of a different decision.

There is another appeal1 on the adjacent site, relating to a full planning application for the erection of 4 double garages associated with the previously approved residential development. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision letter.

There is a further appeal2 on part of the adjacent site, relating to a full planning application for the erection of a dwelling in an area of the garden of the Plot 6 dwelling of the previously approved residential development. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision letter.

The application form describes the application as seeking prior approval for the erection of an agricultural barn of approximately 200 sqm, to be used exclusively in connection with an existing active vineyard operation located on a holding of 2 hectares of agricultural land. However, the application is not a prior approval application. A previous prior approval application3 on the same site for similar development was determined by the Council, with the outcome that prior approval was deemed to be required and then refused. I have regarded the description on the application form as an error during transferral of previous details. The Council has described the development as the erection of an agricultural barn to support vineyard. For the purposes of the banner header and my formal decision, I have 1 Appeal Ref: 6001586 2 Appeal Ref: 6001648 3 1243/25/AGR used the Council’s description of development as it more accurately describes the proposal.

The application relates to a proposal which would include development in proximity to, and on three sides of, a mature ash tree. The tree (T2) is one of two trees on the site, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO)4 and which are therefore protected. However, the ash tree is suffering from ash die back disease and limb loss. The appellant has been granted a Conditional Consent5 dated 28 March 2025, to fell the ash tree, subject to a condition to replace it with a Quercus robur (English oak), which is to be planted as close as practically possible to where the tree was removed.

At my visit, the ash tree remained in situ, and the disease and limb loss was evident. The application drawings do not indicate the T2 ash tree as being removed but show a ‘pollarded ash tree’ in the location of the existing T2 ash tree. The design and access statement which accompanied the application makes no mention of the T2 ash tree or any works to it. I have therefore made my determination on the basis that the pollarded ash tree referenced on the drawings is the existing T2 ash tree that would be subject to limbing and pollarding works.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on tree T2, an ash tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order, and the effects on surrounding landscape character.

The appeal site is an area of agricultural land, which is roughly L-shaped, and which extends to approximately 2 hectares in area. It is planted as a vineyard and situated on the east side of a valley. The land is relatively steeply sloping, the slope facing south to south- west. It falls outside of the settlement boundary of Kingsbridge and is therefore designated as open countryside in policy terms. It is surrounded on three sides by housing, including a new residential development to the east.

Owing to the topography of the valley, the open expanse of the site and its sloping nature, the two trees covered by the TPO, are prominent in distant views of the site, thereby holding landscape amenity value to the surrounding area. Whilst tree T1 is larger than tree T2, the latter is located higher up the slope and therefore is of equal prominence. Tree T2 is in a position within the vineyard, where the slope in the ground is at its shallowest. It is also adjacent to the access track, and sits almost at the centre of the vineyard, close to the inner corner of the L-shape.

The proposal would introduce a broadly U-shaped agricultural building to three sides of the existing T2 ash tree, which is proposed to be pollarded, effectively enclosing it within a courtyard. The new building would be single storey, of a maximum 4 metres in height, and utilising natural timber cladding to its walls, with shallow, mono-pitched roofs finished in an extensive sedum green roof.

The building is proposed to be used as a winery associated with the vineyard, to allow processing of the grapes, and the vinification, bottling and aging of the wine. The Council engaged its agricultural consultant to assess the agricultural need for 4 South Hams District Council (Parish of Kingsbridge) (No.936) Tree Preservation Order 2017 5 0325/25/TPO the building. The consultant concluded that there was a proven need for the building, which was appropriately sited, having regard to its central position within the vineyard, and was designed to meet the required need of the agricultural business, the growing of grapes (fruit) for wine production being defined as an agricultural use under Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990).

The Council considers the building to have an acceptable external appearance and little landscape impact, due in part to its limited scale, the natural materials proposed to be used, and its location within an area surrounded by, but adequately separated from, residential dwellings. Having examined the evidence, I have no reason to disagree with this evaluation.

It is unfortunate that the location best suited to the siting of the proposed winery building, due to the topography of the site, its relationship to the access track, and position at the centre of the vineyard, is also the location of tree T2.

Examining the proposed location of the building relative to the trunk position of tree T2, the building would be within around 1.2 metres to one side and 2.2 metres from its trunk to the other side. The crown spread of tree T2 is described in the tree survey as being 10 metres north to south and 14 metres east to west. The root protection area (RPA) defined by BS5837 (2012) would be 12 times the trunk diameter measured 1.5m above ground level, which is noted in the tree survey as being 85 centimetres. This would roughly equate to a required RPA of around 10m from the trunk in all directions, to avoid any detrimental effects on the tree from construction works.

Having regard to the above, it is evident that were the proposed winery to be constructed in accordance with the drawings, it would result in potentially significant damage to the roots of tree T2. This would likely result in long-term damage and possibly the eventual death of tree T2, a tree protected by TPO.

However, the physical condition of tree T2, which is suffering from ash die back disease and limb loss, together with the [name] for the felling of tree T2, are material considerations. Therefore, I find that either because of development in proximity, or due to the exercising of the [name] for felling, the likely result would be broadly similar, the loss of tree T2, though the timescales for such loss may differ.

Exercising the [name] requires re-planting with a native tree in a position as close as practically possible to where the tree was removed. The required replacement tree is to be between 8 to 10 centimetres girth, which would equate to a tree diameter of around 3 centimetres, which would likely be around 3 metres in height. Clearly, such a replacement tree is not likely to hold much visual amenity value from any distant views. The tree species chosen (Quercus robur) is relatively slow growing and is likely to take a number of years to fully establish and get to a size that would even equate to half of the size of the tree which it would replace. The visual amenity of tree T2 would therefore be lost for a significant period, before any replacement tree would take its place in contributing to the surrounding landscape character.

Policies DEV23 and DEV28 of the JLP do allow for the loss of trees, woodland and hedges where the benefits of development outweigh the loss, and where mitigation is provided which provides a net gain. This is echoed in Policy KWAC ENV10 of the NP. The proposal would provide a barn to act as a winery for the vineyard, the need for which has been confirmed by the Council’s agricultural consultant. There would be economic benefits in both the construction phase of the development, and to the long-term economic viability of the vineyard, as a local agricultural business and employer, which is supported by Policy DEV15 of the JLP. It would also be possible to secure a biodiversity net gain via a suitably worded condition.

The proposal meets the criteria of Policy TTV26(2) of the JLP, for development within the countryside, and through its energy efficient construction and use of solar panels for electricity generation, it would be environmentally sustainable. Its limited window openings and suggested lack of external lighting would also maintain the dark skies within the vicinity. These are further benefits of the proposal.

Retention of tree T2 and its selective limbing and pollarding, as proposed, would retain a significant tree trunk and primary remaining limbs, which would re-leaf a smaller, but still meaningful canopy within one to two seasons. Whilst it may eventually die from development within proximity to it, this may take an extended period to take full effect. In the interim, because of its size, the tree would still contribute to landscape amenity value from distant views, whilst other tree planting, secured under condition, achieved greater maturity to the point where they contributed to the amenity of the surrounding landscape. Whilst the lower portion of the T2 tree’s trunk may be obscured by the proposed building, I find the visual appearance of a tree emerging through a timber clad and sedum green roofed building would contribute its own visual interest within the landscape.

Should tree T2 die at some point in the future, the courtyard nature of the proposal would allow its removal, and its replacement in the same location to comply with the TPO. Whilst any replacement tree in this location would take time to establish, it would adapt to its constrained surroundings, as is common for trees planted in courtyards. Whilst it may not achieve the size and spread of the tree that it replaced, the other trees secured under the planting condition, would have already established to provide landscape amenity value. I am satisfied that there is ample suitable land within the appellants control, to provide further tree planting, both within reasonable proximity to tree T2, and within other areas of the vineyard, such as the northern boundary, where trees would also, in time, become prominent in views and provide landscape amenity.

For the above reasons, and subject to the imposition of a planning condition to secure compensatory tree planting, I find that the proposals would accord with Policies DEV15, DEV23 and DEV 28 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019), and with Policy KWAC ENV10 of the Kingsbridge, [name], and Churchstow Neighbourhood Plan 2021-2034, which, among other things, supports development which meets the essential needs of agricultural interests, which conserves landscape character and which provides biodiversity net gain to mitigate any impact of development on the surrounding area.

In determining the appeal, I have had regard to all other matters raised by consultees and surrounding residents. Many of these have already been addressed above. However, in relation to parking capacity, at my visit there was significant availability of parking space for the number of workers likely to be required in the operation of the vineyard. Regarding the possible future conversion of the winery to a residential dwelling, this is a matter which is outside the scope of this appeal. Any future residential use would require application for and a separate grant of planning permission. In relation to potential noise and hours of operation, the vineyard is an agricultural enterprise with limited likelihood of disturbance to surrounding residents. If such disturbance became an issue in future, this would be subject to environmental controls by the Council under separate legislation.

Whilst the Council did not suggest specific conditions, I have had regard to the Council’s potential condition requirements highlighted in the officer’s delegated report. As some of these related to pre-commencement conditions, a Regulation 2(4) Notice under The Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 was issued to the appellant. The appellant and Council have confirmed their acceptance of the proposed pre-commencement conditions, along with the other conditions suggested. I am satisfied that the conditions meet the tests set out in the Framework and have therefore imposed them accordingly.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans.

A pre-commencement condition requiring submission of a surface water drainage scheme to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council, is required to ensure that harmful effects of development on flooding are avoided, given that the site lies within a Critical Drainage Area.

Pre-commencement conditions covering submission and approval of landscaping and tree planting schemes are necessary to ensure mitigation for the potential loss of a tree subject to a TPO. A condition is also required to ensure that this landscaping and tree planting is maintained and retained for the future.

A pre-commencement condition requiring submission to, and approval by, the Council of a Construction Management Plan is required to ensure that harmful effects of the construction of the proposal are avoided or mitigated to protect the living conditions of surrounding occupiers.

Conditions are needed to control the extent of external lighting in the interests of surrounding neighbours, and for the submission of details of a foul sewerage system, in the interests of users of the building and the wider environment.

Conditions are necessary to ensure the control of materials used in the external envelope of the proposal, and for the green roof system, details and materials to be used, in the interest of visual amenity. A Condition is also necessary to restrict the use of the barn to agricultural purposes only.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that justify determining other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.