Planning permission and the project
Appeal decision
| Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2002 By R.J. Tamplin BA(Hons)MRTPI Dip Cons Studies an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
for Transport, Date: 12th August 2002 __________________________ Appeal Ref: APP/J9497/C/Ol/1067412 Land at Steward Wood, Moretonhampstead, Devon
Summary of Decision: The allegation is corrected, the appeal on ground (a) succeeds, the notice is quashed and planning permission is granted subject to conditions. __________________________ The Appeal Site and Surroundings 1. Steward Wood lies on the lower slopes of Hingston Down, about 1.5km south-east of the small town of Moretonhampstead, and occupies a south-west facing hillside above the A382 to Bovey Tracey. It comprises some I2.5ha of mixed woodland including compartments of Japanese larch, sitka and Norway spruce, Scots pine and areas of sycamore, ash, oak and holly, some which are coppice regrowths. There is an area of ancient woodland near the eastern tip of the site. Access is by way of a hard surfaced track which rises from the A382 to a wide parking area, formerly the embanked track bed of the railway to Moretonhampstead. This casual parking area was occupied at the time of the visit by a white minibus belonging to those living on the appeal site and a few cars owned by occupiers of some dwellings between the railway embankment and the main road, known as Steward Hamlet. On the far side of the road the buildings of Steward Farm, including several barn conversions, are visible through trees. The embankment forms the south-western boundary of the appeal site and continues for about 250m north-westwards, between a small stream and conifer woods. The site ends at a fence forming the boundary with the land attached to a farm whose buildings can be seen some 2OOm to the north. A short distance from this end of the site, and about 5Om uphill into the conifers, is a timber frame and canvas circular structure, about 1Om in diameter and 5m high. It has low walls of laths woven between uprights of debarked poles set into the ground; on these walls are lashed poles supporting the roof which converge on a central post. In front of this structure, which the appellant described as a makeshift shelter constructed by students on an educational course on the site, is a hearth with log seats around. 2. On the eastern side of the parking area, just above a postbox serving the site, is a small bender of green canvas over a frame of wooden poles; this held about a dozen cycles and a quantity of spare parts, metal shelves and boxes. Nearby about five or six other cycles were covered by a tarpaulin. From the parking area a hard surfaced track leads north-eastwards uphill into the woods between stone retaining walls topped by rhododendrons and laurel. A footpath diverges to the north-west to enter a clearing, known as the garden area, in which vegetable beds have been formed. Most of these were fallow at the time of the visit though some contained vegetables. At the top of this area are three or four water butts fed by hoses from a stream higher in the woods, and within a rectangle of low stone walls close by are the remains of a timber frame and canvas structure containing tools and small agricultural equipment. The track continues uphill and curves around to the south-east to enter a wide, flat area known as the Glade; some wooden benches and a table are arranged around this space and in one corner is a stack of cordwood next to a metal drum used for the conversion of wood to charcoal. On the slope above the Glade is the "Rainforest Area" of coppiced hazel, ash, oak and holly between Scots pine to the north-west and larch to the south-east. A second stream flowing through this part of the site has a sI:11all Pelton wheel set in it and fed by a hose taken from higher up this watercourse. 3. The settlement area of the site occupies the central, eastern portion of the wood. At its lower, western end is a compost toilet of two chambers in a structure of wooden poles about 3. Sm high by roughly 2m by 1 m. This has a lower section screened by netting and an upper platform reached by a ladder, screened on three sides by rough timber planks and old window frames and with a roof. There are two curved channels on the slope above to intercept rainwater and a channel below planted with comfrey for urine treatment. About 30m south-east of the compost toilet is a large structure known as the Longhouse. It stands just above a forest track and consists of two parts, a canvas covered bender housing a workshop about 5m square and the Longhouse proper which is about 8m long by 5m wide. Within the workshop are a host of handtools, a bench with vice and a nearby lathe, some old machinery parts, an electric motor, boxes and racks of nuts, bolts, screws and other fixings and various small metal items. A large battery in a metal box is linked by wires from the Pelton wheel and other wires and cable lead into the Longhouse. The latter is built on a level platform of timber sheets supported by wooden joists, in turn carried on a frame of large wooden poles set into the slope; beneath it is a stack of cut timber and several ropes. The Longhouse is entered from the opposite end to the workshop and is constructed of bent timber spars covered by canvas with an internal layer of blankets and an external second layer of ridged canvas. It contains one large room with carpets and rugs on the floor, sofas and armchairs for about a dozen people around a wood bumming stove with flue, two or three well stocked bookshelves and two or three desks and chairs. There is a telephone but no electric light; the south-west facing wall has second hand windows glazing its entire length. 4. To the east of the Longhouse is a fenced kitchen garden, divided into small enclosed, terraced beds, running through which is a small stream. Just above this garden are three or four black plastic domestic cisterns linked by pipes and fed from higher up the small stream. From one of these tanks containing sand filters a pipe leads down to a large canvas covered, timber framed ridge building known as the kitchen. This measures around 7m long by 4m wide and is also built onto a level timber platform supported by stout wooden poles set into the ground. It has electric light and a central cooking area comprising a wood fired Rayburn and a raised open hearth with smoke cowl; metal flues lead from these through the roof. At one end of this structure is a large table top with pots and pans beneath; the wall on the downhill side has second hand windows along its length and below these are metal food cupboards and sinks with running water and draining surfaces. The opposite wall has more storage cupboards for food, cutlery and crockery and several open shelves holding tins, pots and pans. Following the fall of a large tree, the rootball of which was partly in the covered area, the north-western end of this structure was in the course of reorganisation at the time of the visit, and contained a pile of timber and two or three axes. More timber is stored beneath the kitchen platform. 5. A little downhill from the kitchen is an open fireplace surrounded by log seats and close to a canvas covered wood store. Nearby is a small platform dug into the hill and adjacent to it is a large water tank fed by a pipe from the cisterns above the kitchen garden; below is a radiator, heated by a fire pit, and connected to the tank by pipes. This is referred to as the proposed bath house area. Lower down the slope is a bender of canvas and blankets on a frame of bent spars about 5m in diameter; it has two single beds on a wooden platform floor and is referred to as the former visitors' bender. Nearby a larger bender of similar form, which contains a double bed and wood burning stove, was said to be in course of conversion to visitor use. Much higher up the hillside. is another, larger, flattened area known as the camping area. 6. In the higher, eastern part of the settlement area are the benders currently 'occupied by members of the co-operative. These are, with one exception, of similar construction, being built on platforms of stout wooden poles with the uprights set into the ground and the horizontal members lashed to them with thick twine or rope. To the platforms are fixed the floors of the benders, formed of timber sheets supported by wooden joists. The bent spars of the benders are tied to the uprights and are covered externally by canvas or tarpaulin sheets with the inside lined by blankets. All have at least one window facing downhill or south- west and this is usually a second hand unit; similarly all are heated by small wood burning stoves with metal flues through the roof. The size and shape of the benders varies but most are probably about 4m square and 2m high or thereabouts; due to the steeply sloping hillside the platforms are usually some 2.5m high at the front but at ground level at the back. Firewood and some personal possessions are stored beneath the platforms. Most contain simple furniture such as a chair, chest of drawers and bookshelves, and all have single or double bed or mattress. In one large bender was a sofa and a small sink with kettle and cold water supply from the roof together with a small curtained shelf unit holding simple cooking equipment and a few food items. Near this bender is a small timber and canvas toilet structure. The exceptional dwelling is a platform supported between four or five trees and reached by a metal ladder. Its platform is about 3m above ground level and the structure, also of canvas and blankets on a timber frame, is two storey with sleeping quarters upstairs and is around 2.5m high. The five occupied benders are spaced at least 20m apart within larch woodland having an understorey of scrub, and it was generally not possible to see more than one or two others from any one bender. 7. Along the highest woodland path near the north-eastern boundary of the wood is an area of sycamore and hazel coppice stools with covered cordwood and piles of brashings adjacent. This is close to a rocky area where a waymarked woodland walk through the site links to a public footpath which follows the boundary through fields in use for rough grazing. Most of the land on the hills above the site appears to be in such use, but that to the south has the appearance of improved pasture. The woodland continues along the valley side south- eastwards in separate ownerships, but with a higher proportion of deciduous trees than in Steward Wood. From within the site, especially at higher levels, there are views through the trees towards high moorland in the vicinity of Hamel Down. The Allegation Subject of the Notice 8. Although the notice alleges that a material change of use has occurred, it appeared from the site visit that substantial works, akin to building operations, have taken place on the site. In particular the uprights of the platforms supporting all but one of the occupied benders are set into the ground and lashed together with substantial horizontal members, to the extent that they provide a very solid, stable structure. Attached to these are large sheet building boards and wooden joists which form a base for the canvas and bent wood structures above. These are in turn are attached to the platforms. The Longhouse and the former and proposed visitors' benders have also been constructed in this manner, and the kitchen and the compost toilet have frames attached to uprights again firmly fixed into the ground. The bender on a platform in the trees, although using an unaltered, natural means of support, is also firmly attached to those trees and has a floor platform and structure of similar construction to the other benders used as dwellings. 9. In the light of those observations, the Planning Inspectorate
wrote to the parties asking for their views on whether the development
subject of the notice is, as alleged, a material 10. Both parties say that they have always agreed that this development entails a material change of use, and is not operational development. In support they point to the many site visits there have been by officers, Members and the Inspector in the previous appeal, none of whom, in their view, disagrees with their assessment of the nature of the development. They also refer to the developments at King's Hill, East Pennard, and at Tinker's Bubble, Norton-Sub-Hamdon, both in Somerset and both with a similar philosophical approach to development to the appellants, which have similar benders and related structures. Account has been taken of the planning decisions in those cases, including the Secretary of State's definition of low impact dwellings at King's Hill. But the decision on whether or not the allegation correctly describes the alleged breach of control in the notice in this appeal has to be made on the facts of this site. 11. In this case, as the appellant acknowledges, the benders are supported by timber platforms in order to create a flat base on the sloping valley side. It is accepted that this form of construction minimises the impact on the ground because, in most cases, only a few post holes are required, and the depth of their penetration into the ground depends on the soil conditions, some being just a few centimetres deep. But the appellant also says that these uprights are anchored in the earth, which implies a substantial degree of affixation. Furthermore, though these platform structures may not have foundations and are lashed together, they appear substantial and are soundly made with well-constructed joints. The wood panels and joists are similarly well made and are not dissimilar to the form of construction found in modern timber framed housing. The appellant contends that these platforms have a short lifespan, are readily dismantled and that they leave little sign of their presence thereafter. But so do many portable buildings which are considered to be operational development, so those factors are alone not considered to be conclusive. Nor are the intentions of the appellant and his fellow occupiers, to carry out an experiment in living in this way, material to the conclusions on the nature of the development. On an objective test of how these platforms appear, their substantial size, form and appearance and solid construction leads to the conclusion that, as a matter of fact and degree, they are of a permanent nature. This conclusion is supported by the observations of the Inspector in the previous appeal who found the platforms to be substantial and with a degree of permanence. 12. It is also considered that the comparison to the benders at Tinkers Bubble and Kings Hill are not appropriate because, although no photographs of those benders have been produced, the evidence suggests that they are not placed on platforms but are sited directly on the ground. On the appeal site the occupied benders are all on platforms supported either by the timber structures or by a tree; this also applies to the Longhouse, the kitchen and the two visitors' benders. The form of construction at Steward Wood also appears to be different to those other cases in that the presence of the supporting timber structures has led to the benders having been built in conjunction with the supporting structure to which they appear to be firmly affixed. Whether or not the platforms and benders were built at one and the same time, they appear to have been constructed in such a manner that the benders are part and parcel of the supporting structures and the platforms. It is therefore concluded, as a matter of fact and degree, that the benders, including the Longhouse and the kitchen, and the timber supporting structures are each a single structure. 13. In reaching a conclusion on this matter account has been taken of the tests in Cardiff Rating Authority v Guest Keen [ 1949] KB 385, that a building or structure is something constructed as opposed to being brought ready made on to site, that it involves a physical change of some permanence to the land and that there is significant physical attachment to the land. The five living benders, the Longhouse and the kitchen all satisfy these tests. Consideration has also been given to the subsequent judgements of Cheshire CC v Woodward [ 1962] 2 All ER 513 and Barvis v SSE [1971] 22 P&CR 710, both of which were referred to by the appellant. Notwithstanding his arguments however, it is considered that the physical character of the land has been changed by the construction of the timber supporting structures, the platforms and benders to a material degree. The fact that some benders have been removed together with the supporting structures and the land has recovered quickly leaving little trace of their presence is also not conclusive, because it is the effect of the structures as a whole when in position which is of greater significance. Therefore, taking into account all of the above considerations, it is concluded that, as a matter of fact and degree, these structures are the result of operations amounting to building operations, have significant physical attachment to the land, and cause physical change in the character of the land when in position. Hence they are operational development within the meaning of Section 55(1) of the 1990 Act as amended. 14. However, the makeshift shelter near the former railway embankment, the bike shed bender, the agricultural store above the garden area, and the workshop against one end of the Longhouse, are not considered to be operational development because of their relatively light form of construction and lack of substantial affixation to the ground. These features of the site, together with the sitting out areas, bath house area and the parking area, are thus considered to be uses of the land. With the exception of the agricultural store, which does not constitute development by reason of Section 55(2)( e ), these uses are materially different to use for agricultural or forestry purposes and hence are development within the meaning of the Act. 15. In the light of these. conclusions it is considered
that the notice misdescribes the breach. of planning control which has
occurred on the site. What has taken place has been the erection of
five low impact dwellings or benders, an associated communal longhouse,
kitchen, two The Appeal on Ground (a) and the Deemed Application for Planning Permission Development Plan Context 16. The statutory development plan for this area consists of the Devon Structure Plan First Review, 1995-2011? adopted in February 1999 and the Dartmoor National Park Local Plan (Revised), adopted in 1996 Structure Plan Policy S4 requires that development in the open countryside should be strictly controlled and only provided for where consistent with the policies and proposals of the Plan. The aim of Structure Plan Policy H4 IS to prevent residential development in the countryside except where either there is a proven agricultural, forestry or horticultural need, or it results from conversion of disused or redundant buildings of historic or architectural interest. Structure Plan Policy C3 gives priority within the National Park to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage over other considerations in the determination of development proposals. It seeks to provide for development. only where it would conserve and enhance the. natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park, or promote the understanding and enjoyment of the Park's special qualities, or foster the economic or social well-being of the communities within the Park provided that such development is compatible with the pursuit of National Park purposes. 17. Local Plan Policy HS2 aims to permit new dwellings outside towns and villages only where they either involve the acceptable conversion of a building in accordance with specified policies, or they are essential in order to meet a proven agricultural or forestry need. Where such a need is demonstrated the dwelling should be provided by converting an existing building where a suitable building exists. If a new building is necessary , it should be of a scale acceptable in the landscape, if possible adjacent to, or forming an extension to existing buildings. Permission will be made subject to conditions requiring occupancy of the permitted dwelling (and where necessary any other dwelling on the holding) to be restricted to housing for agricultural or forestry workers and implementation of the development within two years. Where necessary, a planning obligation will be sought to tie the permitted dwelling to adjacent farm buildings in order to secure commitment to the establishment and continuation of the holding for which the dwelling is required. The aim of Local Plan Policy is to prevent development within areas of woodland of conservation importance, as shown on the Proposals Map, unless it is necessary for the proper management of the woodland estate, would improve recreational provision, or would preserve features of archaeological or nature conservation significance. Steward Wood is defined as a woodland of conservation importance on the Proposals Map. Main Issues 18. It is considered that the main issues in this case are the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the National Park, having regard to the purposes of designation, the claimed need for the residential presence on the site and considerations of sustainability . The Cases for the Parties 19. The appellant's case is that the Steward Wood Project is an experiment in sustainable living and working practices which seeks to establish a financially self-supporting community living in harmony with its environment and making minimal demands on finite resources. The project vision is to combine conservation woodland management techniques with organic growing, traditional skills and crafts and low impact sustainable living, including renewable energy and affordable dwellings. Its aim is to create a sustainable working woodland and conservation project which is fully integrated into the local economy and community. Consequently, the wood is intended to be a place where skills can be learned so that it becomes a practical centre for the development and propagation of the principles of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. To this end a number of schemes are under way or proposed, including demonstration permaculture gardens, the low impact dwellings themselves, compost toilets, a tree nursery , forest garden and orchard, renewable energy examples, community composting, a low intervention wildlife zone, craft workshops, visitor centre, public access and woodland walks and picnic and play area. These schemes have been developed, and should be considered, holistically and should not be assessed on an item by item basis. 20. The appellant says that living on site is essential if the proposal is to be viable; nonetheless he accepts that the number of participants should be limited to 15. Were the participants to live in Moretonhampstead or other nearby settlements it would be both difficult and expensive to rent or buy accommodation, with the result that they would be forced to take full-time jobs in order to fund their living costs. This in turn would mean that they would be able to devote little time to the project and that they would become commuters, contrary to the philosophy which they espouse. By living in the wood, in a manner similar to workers who historically lived in such places, the group can devote all their time and energies to the project, make very few demands on external resources, use hardly any fossil fuels and create a minimum of pollution. This is typical of permaculture and forest gardening projects, which have low inputs and high outputs of energy and resources, but which are highly labour intensive. There is a functional need for people to live on site to attend to polytunnels, charcoal burning kilns, sap taps and similar items and to ensure that produce is picked fresh and consumed quickly locally. 21. In support of the proposals the appellant has submitted
a Management Plan and Biodiversity Action Plan for the woodland and
a Business and Enterprise Plan covering the period April 2001 to March
2004. He seeks only a temporary permission of no longer than five years,
to enable the project to be re-assessed by both the participants and
by the Park Authority. The 22. The National Park Authority (NP A) say that there are no compelling arguments to show why a residential presence is needed to support the group's objectives. They point out that the NP A owns many woodlands of a similar size which are managed for wildlife and amenity purposes, yet no on-site residential development is required. 15 occupiers cannot be justified for such a small area as Steward Wood. The project seems to be based more on an experiment in an alternative lifestyle than any case that dwellings are required to meet a demonstrable forest management need. To justify a dwelling viability has to be demonstrated beforehand through the functional and financial tests of PPG7 and these applications are rigorously examined. This proposal has been through no such scrutiny and to permit even a single dwelling, let alone such a large number as in this case, would be unacceptable both to the NP A and to the farming community which plays a key role in the social and economic fabric of the Park. 23. An experiment of this nature does not have to take place in a greenfield location in the National Park, and alternative options such as the greening and reclamation of brownfield sites are available which would not compromise the purposes of designation. The structures in this woodland detract from the formerly peaceful character of Steward Wood and are plainly visible to anyone using the roads and footpaths in the area. The traffic and activity generated by the participants in this project, their friends and visitors have afar greater impact on the amenity of local residents than that of seasonal woodland workers. This has resulted in a loss of the quiet enjoyment of those properties and a high level of anxiety and uncertainty which harms the amenity they should be able to expect. The Inspector who dealt with the previous appeal on this site was right to refuse permission for the development and, because there have been no changes in the circumstances since that decision, this appeal should also be dismissed. Inspector's Reasons Effects on the Character and Appearance of the National Park 24. The overriding purpose of the National Park is to
conserve and enhance its natural beauty, 25. But the fact that these dwellings and related development are unobtrusive is not by itself a good argument in favour of permission. It could be repeated too often and the extensive woodlands along this valley potentially provide substantial cover for other similar developments which would erode and undermine the essence of the necessarily strict planning policy framework. In any event, in Steward Wood itself, the degree of activity generated by the present number of occupiers is greater than in nearby woods without this development. Though the occupiers seek to live in a low impact way their very presence and their day to day activities conflict with what would otherwise be a quality of complete solitude and peace. Despite the fact that modern methods of woodland management occasionally give rise to considerable noise and disturbance, such events are comparatiyely rare and do not destroy the essentially peaceful quality of the woods. Accordingly, it is concluded that the number and nature of dwellings and individuals involved in the appeal development seriously harms the character of this woodland within the National Park, contrary to the aims of Structure Plan Policy H4 and Local Plan Policy HS2. Therefore, unless there are material considerations of great weight which indicate otherwise, the provisions of the development plan should prevail in this case and planning permission ought not to be granted. The Claimed Need for a Residential Presence 26. In this case the arguments by the appellant are based on the group's philosophy of sustainable living and the use of the land to demonstrate practically how this might be carried out within a woodland. A reading of the documentation in support of permission shows that the project is not something which has been conceived on the spur of the moment, but has evolved from extensive and careful research and thought. It is linked strongly to the principles underlying the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, and the many individual schemes within the project reflect these concepts and combine to form a loose but cogent framework for the group's activities. Thus the development cannot be compared to a casual encampment, but rather to other practical experiments in ways of living which have a long tradition in this country .The NPA's view that the project is based on an experiment in an alternative lifestyle is therefore correct. They contrast it with what they see as the need to demonstrate that an on-site residential presence is required to manage the woodland, in support of which they refer to the guidance in PPG7 on agricultural and forestry dwellings. In their view developments of this nature have to show that they satisfy the functional and financial tests of Annex I to the PPG. 27. But the judgement in the case of Petter & Harris,' SSETR and Chichester DC [CoA 1999, EPL 5-163.25] makes it clear that it is the purpose behind that guidance which has to be considered in dealing with a particular case. That purpose is to prevent long term harm to the countryside caused by development which has no need to be there. In this instance the appellant does not seek a permanent permission and expressly wishes to avoid a situation where what he describes as "high impact, unsustainable housing", and which others might describe as conventional housing for forestry workers, would be permitted as a result of this appeal. His intention (and that of the group who live on site) is to live by what amounts to subsistence farming and forestry in order to demonstrate that sustainability is not simply a theory but has practical application and benefits for the locality. Accordingly it would be inappropriate to apply the tests of functional and financial viability in paragraphs 15 to 113 of Annex I to this development, because there is no intention of the development becoming permanent. Equally the tests in the Annex for temporary dwellings are also inappropriate to this case, because they are designed for a situation where the proposal is a precursor to a permanent permission and it is necessary to assess whether or not a reasonable prospect of permanent viability can be established. That is manifestly not the case here. Nor is the advice of paragraph 116 on forestry dwellings applicable because conventional modern methods of forestry management are expressly not proposed here. It follows that the NPA's concerns about the absence of evidence satisfying those tests are thus misconceived. 28. However, it is necessary that some evidence of the experiment having a functional requirement for the participants to live on site and that it is reasonably based in financial and practical terms should be available. If that were not the case it would be open to anyone with a wish to live temporarily in the countryside solely for their own enjoyment to be able to do so, thereby undermining the aim of long established planning policies on rural settlement. In this appeal the appellant has provided the Management Plan and Biodiversity Action Plan for the woodland and a Business and Enterprise Plan for the project. The former gives a compartment by compartment plan for the control and enhancement of the wood which analyses the flora and fauna and seeks to manage these resources for the benefit of the community as well as of the group. The latter is a comprehensive analysis of the proposed activities and the income and expenditure anticipated over a three year period. 29. On the functional need for a residential presence,
the plans show that the appellant's claim is demonstrable because of
the labour intensive nature of the project. Few concessions are made
to current technology so that chainsaws and tractors are not used in
forestry operations, making them laborious and slow, public transport,
walking and cycling are used in preference to car/minibus travel, energy
and waste systems have to be implemented and maintained, material has
to be reused or recycled, and educational projects devised and undertaken,
all of which involve a considerable amount of time. Furthermore, given
the size of the wood and the number and nature of separate schemes within
the project, a significant number of participants are needed to provide
a minimum critical mass of labour resources to undertake those activities.
Were the group to live off-site, the evidence on housing costs in Moretonhampstead
bears out the appellant's claim that conventional housing costs and
the need to find employment to fund them would lead to the group having
little time available for the project. Therefore it would become little
more than a hobby and its purpose would be completely negated. Accordingly,
it is concluded that there is a clear functional justification for the
presence of at least the present number of occupiers to live on the
site during the envisaged five year life of the project. Sustainability Considerations 31. The development is acknowledged by both parties to be an experiment in practical sustainable living within a woodland environment, based on the principles of permaculture. There is no proposal for it to become permanent and the appellant offers conditions and a draft planning obligation to ensure that long term policy aims of protecting the countryside from unnecessary development are not compromised. The principles of sustainability behind the experiment are central to Government policy and it is therefore of importance that they are tried and tested in a practical way. That is not to endorse the project, but to recognise that it may be one way of assessing the degree to which those principles are capable of practical application. The group who the appellant represents are plainly committed fully to abide by those principles. Because of this they are willing to live in circumstances that most people would consider frugal, if not harsh; it certainly cannot be considered as anything beyond subsistence. Hence there is no question that permission would enable the group to benefit by evading the strict policies of control; rather it would result in no more than a relatively short term existence on the site during which they could be obliged to work hard to ensure the success of the project should they wish to seek a further term. Summary and Conclusions on the Main Issues 32. The appellant has shown that there is evidence to support his argument that this experiment is not a flight of fancy but is reasonably based financially and that it is likely to have benefits for the local community and economy. These benefits include education in woodland and other rural skills, the enhancement of the appearance of the wood itself through management, conservation of natural habitats and species, and assisting in recreational development, including a woodland walk and extension of the cycle trail along the former railway line. It is considered that these benefits fall within the terms of Structure Plan Policy C3 and hence also satisfy Policy S4. Though the development may not be strictly necessary for the proper management of the woodland estate in a conventional sense, that conclusion has to be tempered by the considerations that the nature of such management is not an absolute, but relates to the philosophy and principles involved. In this case the latter are recognised to be novel yet accord with the Government' sown commitment to policies of sustainability. For this reason and because of the experimental nature of the development it is concluded that, although the development does not comply with the wording of Local Plan Policy WL1, it does satisfy its underlying aims and purpose. 33. For the reasons already given in paragraphs 27 to
30, similar conclusions apply in relation to Structure Plan Policy H4
and Local Plan Policy HS2. The development is exceptional because of
its experimental nature so that it cannot be judged in the same way
as conventional applications for permanent or temporary agricultural
or forestry dwellings. It can therefore be distinguished from such cases
so that the NPA' s concern about the message permission would send to
the local farming community is unwarranted. The appeal development can
also be distinguished from those at Tinker's Bubble and King's Hill
because it is set mainly in woodland and in a National Park. That is
not to downgrade the importance of the National Park which merits the
highest degree of protection. But the appellant seeks to show, through
the experiment that he and the others in the co-operative have conceived,
that social and economic wellbeing of the local community can be fostered
by living in a way that accords with current thinking on sustainability.
In the two years that the group have occupied the site they have demonstrated
that these alms do have a reasonable philosophical, practical and financial
basis and that there is a reasonable prospect j of the forecast benefits
being realised. The group have also shown their commitment to the project
and its principles and that it is essential to the progress of the project
that they should 34. Against this background it is considered that the
appellant has established a special need for Other Considerations 35. Two other considerations of weight arise in this case, the decision in the previous appeal on this site, which was dismissed in September 2001, and the matter of human rights and in particular those under Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention. The previous appeal related to a proposal for "low impact, sustainable development associated with agriculture/forestry enterprise, incorporating educational and residential elements", and from the description in the decision it seems that what was then on site was more or less the same as was seen and recorded in this appeal. However, the development proposed in that appeal was to continue the use of the land for the above purposes and the then appellants' intentions were to site 16 residential shelters of up to 30sq m and five non-residential shelters of up to 45sq m within a defined 1.5ha settlement area. In the present appeal it has already been determined that the development is both operational development and a change of use of the land so that the appeal on ground (a) and the deemed application are for the erection of six residential and one visitors' benders, communal longhouse and kitchen, and compost toilet, all with supporting platforms, and the use of the land for the siting of three unoccupied benders used as a cycle shelter, workshop and for educational purposes respectively, and the laying out of a parking area, bath house area and sitting out areas. Thus there is some difference between what was before the Inspector in the previous appeal and that subject of this appeal. 36. As regards the previous appeal, the Inspector accepted that some of the proposed activities would accord with some provisions of Structure Plan Policy C3 and Local Plan Policy WL1. But, in balancing those with other policies, he found there was no overriding need for any residential element to support either those activities or the sum of all the proposed uses in the wood. However his conclusions on the need for the residential component rest on an assessment of work undertaken by the group during their first year and seen by the NPA in May 2001, when they considered that in total it would have taken a woodsman less than an hour. The site visit in the present case showed that considerably more work had been carried out, and though this has not been quantified, it has been taken into account in reaching these conclusions. The previous appeal decision also concludes that, for all the schemes envisaged by the project, the Business and Enterprise Plan shows insufficient work for 3 full-time workers. That appraisal was based on conventional 40 hour working weeks and an income similar to the minimum agricultural wage. But, in the light of the Petter & Harris judgement, greater weight has now been given to the subsistence nature of this enterprise and the implications in terms of time and cost for the project were the group to live off-site. Accordingly it is concluded that these factors have altered the circumstances of this case so that the balance is now in favour of permission. 37. On the matter of human rights, reference has been made to the group's strong adherence to the principles of sustainability but it is concluded that this is riot a matter of conscience akin to a religious belief that would be afforded protection by Article 9 of the Convention. However, on Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life and the home, it is considered that dismissal of this appeal would represent a serious interference with those rights, not only for the appellant, but for the entire group now on the site because the benders are their only homes. Given this conclusion, it is necessary to balance this interference against the wider public interests arising in this case, in terms of harm to the purposes of designation of the National Park, harm to the aims of rural settlement policies, effects on traffic generation and on the amenity of nearby residents. It has already been concluded that no serious harm would be caused to the landscape, to the purposes of designation or to the underlying aims of rural settlement policies were permission to be granted for this appeal. In terms of traffic generation the appellant has suggested conditions limiting the number of vehicles of residents and visitors to the site; this would have the additional benefit that it would minimise harm to the amenity of the residents closest to the site, who live adjacent to the existing car park. In the light of these conclusions therefore, it is further concluded that any harm to issues of wider public interest is insufficient to warrant refusal of permission, if permission is made subject to the suggested conditions. 38. All the other matters raised by the NP A and by interested persons have been taken into account but none is so cogent as to outweigh the above conclusions. Therefore, in the absence of harm caused by the development to the underlying aims of planning policies, and because of the interference with the appellant's human rights under Article 8 were permission to be refused, the appeal on ground (a) should succeed. For similar reasons planning permission should be granted for the deemed application. The Submitted Planning Obligation and Conditions 39. These matters have been considered in the light of Circular advice. The planning obligation submitted by the appellant is that submitted for the previous appeal; therefore it refers expressly to permission being granted for that development. As noted above, the development in this case is that subject of the deemed application and is substantially different in description and content to that in the planning appeal. It follows that the submitted obligation does not apply to this appeal. Nevertheless, in this case ii is not considered that planning permission should be refused in the absence of the appropriate obligation. This is an exceptional development because of the principled and cogent philosophy of the group which is reflected in the development. In these circumstances it is accepted that the appellant and the group are fully committed to the project and the probability is that they will act in good faith and abide by the principles set out in the obligation. Moreover, because the permission is temporary, failure to observe -the undertakings can be taken into account should the permission come to be renewed. However, a condition to the same end as the second part of the undertaking will be imposed, to the effect that an annual progress report should be submitted to the NP A, detailing the activities undertaken and compliance with the development criteria and the Business and Management Plans. This is considered necessary to enable monitoring of the experiment and enable appropriate advice and assistance to be directed in furtherance of National Park objectives of fostering the social and economic wellbeing of its communities. 40. On planning conditions, none was suggested by the NPA for this appeal so that consideration has been given to those submitted for the previous appeal. Because the nature of the development is experimental and thus short term, and bearing in mind the appellant's request that a five year permission be granted, such a condition will be imposed. The approximate location of the various elements of the development will be shown on a plan attached to the decision and a- condition limiting their location to those positions will be imposed because it is necessary to protect the appearance of the landscape. This is a more precise version of one of the previously suggested conditions. For the same reason a complementary condition will be imposed, withdrawing permitted development rights for caravans, mobile homes, vehicles, buildings, structures and tents to be placed on the land other than those in the permitted locations. In order to protect the residential amenities of the occupiers of Steward Hamlet, there will be a condition limiting the number of vehicles to be parked at any time to three owned by the occupiers and ten owned by visitors, and another preventing the use at and time of petrol or diesel powered generators. The other suggested conditions are not considered to be necessary and hence will not be imposed. The Appeal on Ground (g) 41. Because the appeal succeeds on ground (a) so that the notice will be quashed, the appeal on ground (g) does not fall to be determined. Formal Decision 42. For the above reasons, and in exercise of the powers transferred to me, I hereby determine this appeal as follows: (a) I direct that the allegation in paragraph 3 of the
notice be corrected by the deletion of all the words in that paragraph
(other than those in bold type) and the substitution for those words
of the following: (b) Subject to the above correction, I allow the appeal, direct that the notice as corrected be quashed, and grant planning permission for the application deemed to have been made under Section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended for the erection on land at Steward Wood, Moretonhampstead, Devon, of six residential and one visitors' benders, communal longhouse and kitchen, and compost toilet, all with supporting platforms, and the use of the same land for forestry purposes and for the siting of three unoccupied benders for the purposes of a cycle shelter, workshop and for educational purposes respectively, and the laying out of a parking area and sitting out areas, the approximate location of all these being shown on the plan attached to this letter, subject to the following conditions: 1. This permission shall be for a period of five years
from the date of this decision, after which all of the structures hereby
permitted shall be removed from the land, the permitted uses shall cease,
and the land shall be reinstated to its former condition. Note: This permission does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Right of Appeal Against the Decision 43. This decision is the determination of the appeal before
me. Particulars of the rights of appeal against this decision to the
High Court are enclosed for those concerned. |