Appeal 6004868

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of a permeable farm track at [site address] , Portgate, Lewdown, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1767/25/FUL, subject to the conditions set out below:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no A100.SMITH.25 Location Plan and Site Plan.

The top surface of the farm track shall be constructed from a permeable layer of locally sourced crushed gravel/stone.

Should the farm track no longer be required for agricultural purposes, it shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition in accordance with a scheme of work (including a timetable) that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The appeal application form describes the development as ‘retrospective’ and seeks ‘regularisation’ for such. Indeed, I saw at my site visit that the development had already commenced, though was not complete. I have removed the superfluous words from the description which do not describe an act of development and have proceeded on the basis that works have commenced.

The Planning Statement submitted with the appeal application refers to the track being 3 metres (m) wide by 400m long, thus covering an area of around 1,[address] metres (sqm). However, these measurements have been corrected in the Appeal Statement to 2.5m by 135m and thus, a much reduced area of around 338 sqm. I have noted this correction and the extent of the farm track during the site visit.

The main issue in the appeal is the effects of the farm track on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of [site address] which is a holding extending to around 5.6 hectares. The farmhouse has a separate domestic access from the road to the north, set behind a turning and parking area. The agricultural access has been created to the west of the dwelling and extends in a westerly direction before winding back to the east to terminate by the farmhouse and agricultural buildings. It essentially connects the agricultural buildings to the road, through the top parts of the three fields that make up the holding, avoiding the constrained domestic access. These are the areas where the most movements are made by farm machinery associated with land maintenance and hay production which are typical activities on an agricultural holding.

The site is located within the open countryside of [name] 5A ‘[name] which is broadly characterised as expansive undulating and generally open upland farmland with little built development1. The elevated and undulating site displays these typical characteristics, save for the obvious features of built development comprising the house, farm buildings and engineered accesses from the road to the north. It is an otherwise unremarkable element of this landscape character type that covers sizeable areas of [name] and [name].

Whilst the creation of the farm track has changed the landcover over the area of c. 338sqm, it is visually unobtrusive and has been kept to a modest scale overall. Though it is not directly aligned to the boundaries, the farm track has at least been created over a route which lies in close proximity of the accesses, the dwelling and the farm buildings where they exert a built influence, as opposed to being more harmfully sited, such as in the open, middle parts of the fields.

Though a final top surface is yet to be applied, the track would be finished in a locally sourced crushed gravel. This type of surface is appropriate for a rural setting as opposed to an urbanised tarmac or brick paviour finish. Whilst the track itself is an engineered feature, there would be no kerbstones or other domestic elements that would exacerbate its engineered quality. It would appear as a relatively typical, rustic farm track, providing a permeable, yet hard wearing surface to preserve the higher traffic areas involved with entering and exiting the farm and fields. Furthermore, the appellant indicates that the development is reversible. This could mean the reversal of landscape effects if the track were to become redundant and the land restored to its original condition.

As would be a consequence of any development that changes part of the natural landscape to an engineered feature, there would be some degree of effect on landscape character and visual quality. However, owing to its scale, nature, siting, and related appearance, the harm would be negligible, justified by, and associated with activities typically undertaken within an agricultural setting. As such, the proposal does not raise conflict with, in particular, policies DEV20, DEV23 and TTV26 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (adopted 2019). Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development respects scenic quality and has proper regard for the pattern of local development and the wider development context and surroundings. 1 [name] and West Devon Landscape Character Assessment, LUC (2018)

I have noted from representations made that there have been recent issues arising from a change of the farm’s registered postal address. This is not a matter for me as part of this appeal.

The suggestion that the proposal is part of an alternative evolving plan to diversify the farm for tourism purposes is not part of the proposal before me either. Adequate justification has been provided for the agricultural uses to which the track would be put and I have no cogent evidence on which to base an assumption that it is needed for additional or alternative purposes. Similarly, as each proposal is based on its own individual merits, I attribute little weight to the suggestion that allowing the appeal would result in the creation of a harmful precedent.

The Council did not offer any suggested planning conditions; however, I consider that it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

As the development has already commenced, there is no need to specify the time limit for commencement of the development.

As there is no detail in the approved plans on the upper surface treatment, it is necessary to specify this by way of condition in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

On the basis of the appellant’s indication that the track is capable of being removed to overcome the identified effects of the development, I have imposed a condition requiring this the land to be restored to its original condition should it no longer be needed for agricultural purposes.

The proposal complies with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. As such, for the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be allowed.