Appeal 6002813

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. I have however removed any wording which in itself does not relate to acts of development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the ancient woodland.

The appeal site comprises a small parcel of land which is accessed off [site address] via a long and unmade track. The site falls within an area of ancient woodland.

Paragraph 193 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

The Arboricultural Report (AR) provided shows that there would some seven individual trees and two groups of trees near the location of the proposed development. These trees are category B, category C or category [name] advises that both category U trees are dead, and therefore, given the extent of activity that would occur near these trees, they should be felled. However, the AR also recognises that dead standing trees within a woodland context can constitute important habitat. No further details were provided, and therefore their biodiversity value is not known. While the appellant’s Appeal Statement sets out that the shed could be constructed without the dead trees being felled, there are no further details explaining how this would be achieved.

While the ancient woodland assessment carried out within the AR states that the proposal would not result in the loss or fragmentation of any ecological connections within the remaining woodland. However, this stance is not supported by a robust ecological survey, and therefore I cannot be confident that features of ecological interest would not be harmed.

Moreover, the AR states that while no specific tree work would be necessary in order to implement the proposal, some minor crown lifting works or cutting back may be required in order to facilitate access. No further details have been provided, nor any trees identified, and therefore the extent of any such works to the trees is not known. As such, there is insufficient information before me to enable me to be satisfied that these pruning works would not result in damage or deterioration of the trees.

The Tree Protection Plan shows that the proposed shed would largely be sited within the root protection area of the existing trees in its immediate vicinity. These include T1, a category B tree with a moderate quality tree and an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years and T3, a category C tree with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years. Given the siting of the proposal, and the limited details provided in respect of the proposed foundation design, I cannot rule out that the proposed pad foundations would not lead to harm to the trees through damage to roots.

While the proposed shed would be modest in scale, accessing it would require travelling via the existing unmade track. The appellant’s [name] sets out that limited vehicular access to the site would be required. This is however at odds with the appellant’s Appeal Statement, which sets out that one of the reasons for requiring the shed is that once completed there would be no need to drive vehicles into the wood. Therefore, it is unclear how the access track would be used following development, and the AR does not include an assessment of the track.

The proposed shed is required to provide covered and secure storage for the appellant’s equipment to maintain the land and trees. The appellant’s [name] advises that they maintain the ancient woodland to stop the spread of silver birch. The proposal would assist with new planting of hornbeam, oak and alder which would replace non-native spruce which the appellant has cut down upon DEFRA’s instruction. I have not been provided with copies of this instruction.

Reference is made to a [name] Notice1 which requires the appellant to fell and remove all the Norway spruce due to infestation of the spruce bark beetle. The Council advises that the statutory felling licence would only relate to the works as set out within the notice and would not cover the felling of other trees outside the notice area, which is not disputed by the appellant. [name] have not been supplied with a copy of this notice, and the appellant’s supporting statement refers to the spread of silver birch, it is unclear how the proposal would support the works required by the notice.

The appellant anticipates that the ancient woodland will be lost within the next 20 years or so if the shed is not constructed. However, there is limited evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposal is the sole means to ensure that the necessary works to the trees would be carried out. On this basis, I do not find that 1 SPHN 21/01795/01 dated 12 October 2021 the proposal would result in a public benefit. Moreover, no management plan of the woodland has been supplied, and therefore it is not known how the woodland would be managed.

Given the above, I cannot be certain that the proposal would not result in loss or deterioration of the ancient woodland. The proposal would not introduce a public benefit which would clearly outweigh the harm and would not constitute the wholly exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the ancient woodland. It would be contrary to Policies RA2, RA3, EN1, and EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS), and Policy DEN4 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 (DASA). Amongst other things, these policies seek to conserve the ecological and natural resources of the countryside, protect ancient woodlands and protect biodiversity.

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. I am also conscious of my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

The appeal is set within the High Weald National Landscape (NL), and its special qualities include the pattern and landscape setting of dispersed historic settlements, interspersed with irregular fields bound by hedgerows, pasture and ancient woodlands.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to policies pertaining to development within a NL, including [name] DEN1 and DEN2. However, the Council’s assessment set out within the officer report is not clear in relation to the harm found. The proposed development comprises a small shed which would be set back from the road, in a secluded location, and I have not been directed to any public rights of way within the vicinity of the site. The proposal would have a sympathetic design. [name] cannot rule out the harm to the ancient woodland, given the nature and scale of the shed, it would not harm the landscape character and scenic beauty of the NL.

I acknowledge the comments submitted in support of the proposal. However, the matters raised do not justify the harm that I have identified above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.