In August 2007 we received a temporary 3-year planning permission to continue our permaculture project and low-impact residential community. That permission expires in August this year, and we have now applied to South Hams District Council for an extension of the permission.
To help us achieve the best possible chance of securing renewed permission, letters of support from friends and local people would be very beneficial. Descriptions of your personal experience of Landmatters will be especially valuable.
You may like to include such points as: i What benefits you think Landmatters has for the local and wider community; i What value we have to you (eg. education, access to the countryside, skillshare, salad); i Our worth and credibility as an example of permaculture; i Why you think we should be allowed to continue.
The easiest way for you to submit an opinion on our application is by using the link on this webpage. – which you can also find easily by following links from the council’s homepage.
The final deadline for submitting comments on our application is 14th July 2010. Alternatively, you can write to the council, by post or email, quoting the application reference number:13/1280/10/F :
Planning department, South Hams District Council, Follaton House, Plymouth Road, Totnes, Devon, TQ9 5NE. email: .
Please note: all comments will be published by the council on their website.
Many thanks, we greatly appreciate your support! Best wishes from all at Landmatters. Have a great summer!
Last Updated ( Thursday, 17 June 2010 )
Introduction to Permaculture
Written by M. Freeland
Monday, 10 August 2009
Introduction to Permaculture Sat 19th & Sun 20th Sep ‘09
Landmatters, nr Totnes
The course will guide you through some of the key Permaculture principles & practices.
Includes tour of the site, practical work, wild food walk,
Join us for inspiration and practical ideas for more sustainable living
A weekend course at Landmatters Permaculture Project
Reduce your carbon footprint and learn the quiet, rhythmic way to keep grass and scrub land in top condition with this impressive tool. Tips and techniques on how to mow allotments and fields, hedgerows and lawns, sharpen blades and unravel the mysteries of the peening anvil. Physical fitness and age not important. Gaining in popularity, the scythe is especially useful for slopes, bumps and corners where motor mowers dare not go. With expert tuition by Simon Fairlie of The Scythe Shop you will be able to fit, care for, use, and even buy, your own scythe.
Treat yourself to a low-impact weekend on this beautiful site near Totnes in Devon. Camping, food and entertainments provided. £120, 25% Totnes pounds acceptable. Booking essential. For more details or to book a place go to www.landmatters.org.uk or contact Charlotte on 01803-712718.
Last Updated ( Saturday, 15 August 2009 )
ORIGINAL PLANNING APPLICATION 2006
Written by M. Freeland
Monday, 24 March 2008
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION 1 Nature of application 2 Who and what is Landmatters? 2 Map 1 – Change of use
PERMACULTURE 3 Permaculture design 4 Zones – Fig.1 5
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 6 Shelter 6 Map 3 – Positioning of structures Fig. 2, 3, 4 Water 8 Renewable Energy 8 Ecology and Bio-diversity 10 Transport 10 Waste Management and Recycling 11 Fig. 5
DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE 12
RURAL REGENERATION 13
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 16
HUMAN RIGHTS 18
PPS7 ANNEX A: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND OTHER OCCUPATIONAL DWELLINGS 18 Temporary permission for temporary dwellings 18 Evidence of firm intention 19 Functional need 20 Map 4 – Work carried out so far Map 5 – Work to be done 2006-2011 Financial viability 22
OTHER HOLDINGS THAT RECEIVED PERMISSION 23
APPENDICES:
1 MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 PC DESIGN TEXT & MAP 2 3 PROJECTED LIVELIHOODS & EDUCATION 4 FIFTEEN CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS 5 POLICIES TO WHICH THIS APPLICATION CONFORMS 6 WELSH ASSEMBLY REPORT 7 LETTERS OF SUPPORT
INTRODUCTION
This application presents Landmatters Co-operative’s vision for the land at Allaleigh, the philosophy behind it and the activities we are engaged in. The document begins by introducing our key commitments, the nature of the application and the Co-op followed by a section explaining Permaculture and the design process. We then address sustainable development including provision for shelter, water, energy, ecology, transport and waste & recycling. The next section looks at issues around development in the countryside, affordable housing and rural regeneration. Finally, we discuss functional need and financial viability in the context of Annex A, PPS7, and finish with a list of other sustainable holdings that have received planning permission. We have included several maps including our Permaculture design map, along with illustrations and explanation of its principles and the design process and other supporting documents e.g. our management plan, the Fifteen Criteria for sustainable development in the countryside, summary of a Welsh Assembly report on Low-Impact Development (see appendix 6), Projected Livelihoods and letters of support.
Much of what we are proposing sits well with government policy, rural regeneration, transport, renewable energy, etc. It is an innovative project not directly provided for in standard planning policies, exacerbated by the fact that we find ourselves in a policy vacuum that has reverted to the 10 year old Local Plan until the emerging Local Development Framework (reflecting PPS7) is adopted. We believe that the project can nevertheless be accommodated within existing policy but, to the extent that such policy does not adequately deal with applications of this nature, we invite the Council to consider the information presented in this application as ‘other material considerations’ for the purposes of section 70(2) of the 1990 Act. As explained below this is particularly relevant in the areas of low-impact development and Permaculture as relevant to the functional and financial tests.
The Co-op’s activities are in keeping with over 50 policies from local, regional and national government.
Key commitments of Landmatters
• To manage the land in accordance with the ethics and principles of Permaculture, which involves the harmonious integration of landscape and people, providing their food, energy, shelter and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way (see Permaculture). • To conduct agriculture, horticulture and forestry, and sustainable land management (see Management Plan, appendix 1). • To live a low-impact lifestyle, thus reducing our ecological footprint (see Sustainable development). • To increase access to the countryside through education and volunteer work whilst promoting sustainability and rural skills. • To enhance and encourage biodiversity of species and habitats (see Management Plan). • To take responsibility for our impact on the wider environment by thinking and acting in an appropriate manner on the local scale. • To fully integrate into and be an asset to the local economy and community.
Why we need to live on the land to achieve our aims:
• It is essential for a fully functioning model of permaculture that humans are integrated beneficially into the natural environment (see Functional Need). • To establish a working community of mutual support with shared energy and resources, which provides for most of the material and social needs of that community. • To provide a viable livelihood for ourselves through a combination of rural enterprises including education, sustainable land use consultancy, and agricultural, horticultural and woodland products and services (see appendix 3)
Nature of application
Landmatters Co-operative Ltd is applying for change of use of land from purely agricultural to a permaculture holding integrating agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises (see appendix 3), with a sustainable community housed in temporary low-impact structures. The co-operative is applying for permission for the change of use for a specified area, rather than applying for permission for specific structures. The change of use area is marked on map 1. and includes up to 15 residential shelters plus one structure for workers’ rest room, shared kitchen, library, etc.
To be able to prove commitment and to safeguard against inappropriate development in the open countryside, the application is for temporary planning permission for a five-year period.
Who and what is Landmatters?
Landmatters Co-operative Limited (registered in England and Wales under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965-1978, registration no. 29359R), owns and manages the holding of approximately 42 acres in the South Hams. The Co-operative has a membership agreement that ensures no individual has any right over the land. All decisions regarding the use of the land are decided collectively at quorate meetings of the Co-operative. To become a member one must pay a substantial membership fee and have one’s application approved by all current members of the Co-operative.
To maintain the integrity of the Co-op’s aims we have registered as a Community co-op under FSA rules. A secondary rule requires all contentious decisions to be agreed by all members, or by a two thirds vote if necessary.
The co-operative’s members have a diverse range of backgrounds and skills such as sustainable land use, organic horticulture, woodland management and wood crafts, ecology of biodiversity, conservation, arts, education, group facilitation and working within co-operative structures. All are trained in Permaculture design.
There are seven permanent residents on the land who have lived in the area for some years. Other Co-op members spend blocks of time on the land, as when carrying out a particular activity, or on a part-time basis. Community Supported Farming volunteers come one day a month and BTCV as required (seasonal). Other volunteers and visitors are hosted by a member, and visit according to work requirements or convenience.
A rough indication of members’ attendance might be: weekly visits of 1-7 days in length – 2 people, occasional visits of 1-5 days every few months – 6 people, one day a month – 2 people.
[Photo of Dan laying hedge]
PERMACULTURE
Permaculture (permanent agriculture/permanent culture) was initially conceived in the 1970s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren at the university of Tasmania as a “perennial agriculture for human settlements” (Mollison and Holmgren, 1978, p.1). The initial concept was that sustainable agriculture underpins a sustainable society, and was expanded to include all aspects of sustainable cultures - legal, financial, information and access to land - allowing for less dependence on non-renewable resources.
Mollison (1990, p.ix) has defined Permaculture as “the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way. This includes housing, water systems, transport and the like and also invisible structures such as legal and financial systems, and the development of supportive social networks”.
The ethical basis of Permaculture is summed up in three simple principles. Earth care ensures the provision for all life to continue and multiply, People care provides access to those resources necessary for physical and spiritual human existence, and Fair share distributes any surplus of money, information and yields to further the first two principles.
Permaculture practice aims to create poly-cultural systems that have a diversity of yields and species as well as the maximum number of beneficial interconnections. These ‘beneficial relationships’ between a system’s diverse elements are at the core of Permaculture design, with the aim to create a system in which the natural functions of each element do the majority of the work.
Permaculture is now a global movement, with projects being undertaken in many countries around the world. In the UK there are more than fifty projects inspired by this system, demonstrating ways of living sustainably and abundantly. It applies equally to rural and urban settings and its principle of local food production for local consumption has become an accepted sustainable practice (Clunies-Ross, T. and Hildyard, N. 1992). Its practical application results in, among other things, energy-efficient housing, local-scale renewable energy projects, water conservation and recycling, local economic systems and agricultural systems based on more perennial species, trees, mixed plantings and increased diversity of species.
In short, Permaculture is a design process for creating sustainable systems for land use, housing, communities and businesses. In the words of the Permaculture Association, the design process “looks at the whole system and seeks to integrate the effective working of all its components whilst minimising external inputs and closing the cycles of resource use” (Andrew Goldring, Permaculture Association, High Court Witness Statement, 2002).
Permaculture design (see map 2 in appendix 2)
The design process is cyclical:
Observation and recording
Monitoring Design
Implementation
1. Observation and recording: We spent our first year observing and recording. The observation process is ongoing. Observation includes: landform; weather; microclimates (i.e. shade, shelter, frost pockets, wind, etc.); species lists (plants, animals, birds, insects, fungi); rare and notable species and habitats; mapping the woodland; land-use history; consultation of experts (e.g. Devon Wildlife Trust, Orchard Link, Dart Valley Catchment Project).
2. Design: Designing takes into account information gathered, needs of the land, project and environment along with the Permaculture principles. Map 2 shows our long-term vision. We are also working on detailed designs for more specific areas of the land and certain key aspects of the project (for example see fig. 2).
3. Implementation: See map 4 for work undertaken so far, and map 5 for work intended over coming years. Our management plan states our intentions for the next five years. More detailed plans for implementation are in progress.
4. Monitoring: Evaluation and monitoring are always ongoing.
Zones (fig. 1) Zoning is a planning tool used when creating a Permaculture design. It is logical and adds to energy efficiency.
“The principle of zoning is that whatever needs most attention should be placed nearest to the centre of human activity. Thus an intensive garden, which needs daily attention, is best placed in view of the kitchen window, whereas a timber plantation, which may not need visiting from one year to the next, can be far away.” (Patrick Whitefield 2004 Earth Care Manual)
[Diag of zones, fig. 1]
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The pursuit of sustainable development is now at the heart of the UK government’s agenda: “The past 20 years have seen a growing realisation that the current model of development is unsustainable. […] we see the increasing burden our way of life places on the planet on which we depend: -the consequences of already unavoidable climate change, -increasing stress on resources and environmental systems – water, land and air – from the way we produce, consume and waste resources, and -increasing loss of biodiversity from the rainforest to the stocks of fish around our coast. […] Unless we start to make real progress […] we all, wherever we live, face a future that is less certain and less secure than we in the UK have enjoyed over the past fifty years. We need to make a decisive move towards more sustainable development both because it is the right thing to do, and because it is in our long-term best interests. It offers the best hope for securing the future.” (“Securing the future”, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, March 2005)
Similarly, sustainability is also at the heart of Landmatters’s agenda: “the objectives of the co-operative shall be: […] to manage all land acquired by the co-operative, and any other land that might be placed in the care of the co-operative, in a sustainable fashion, so as to enhance the diversity, productivity and beauty of the landscape, in accordance with the principles of organic horticulture, conservation and permaculture, so providing a rich, healthy, stable and supportive environment for the benefit and happiness of present and future generations.” (Rules of Landmatters Co-operative 2002)
The UK government’s commitment to place sustainable development at the heart of the land use planning system and at the core of new planning guidance includes making ‘sustainable communities’ an agreed priority. Landmatters believes that the proposed development can be part of the solution.
The three central tenets of Permaculture are equivalent to those of sustainability: People care = social benefit, earth care = environmental benefit, fair share = economic benefit. Shelter “All countries should . . . strengthen the indigenous building materials industry, based, as much as possible, on inputs of locally available natural resources . . . promote the increased use of energy efficient designs and technologies and sustainable use of natural resources . . . promote the use of labour-intensive construction methods . . . develop policies and practices to reach the informal sector and self-help builders . . . discourage the use of construction materials and products that create pollution during their life cycle” (from Chapter 7 of Agenda 21). Low-impact residential shelters and ancillary structures
The structures housing the residents at the holding are Benders, Yurts and similar temporary low-impact shelters. Enforcement Officer Jamie Staples has stated to us on 16 December 2005 that they do not constitute operational development. This is in line with the appeal decision at Kings Hill: “The Secretary of State agrees that the relatively impermanent nature of the structures and the small degree of alteration to the surface of the land involved in the erection of benders is not operational development, but is comparable to the erection of tents and amounts to a change of use of the land” (paragraph 10 Appeal decision ref: APP/Q3305/C/95/637457, 637503,637589. APP/Q3305/A/95/ 248044 & A/99/102/8348).
We have included pictures of two benders and a yurt for those who are unfamiliar with such structures (figs 2-4).
The temporary low impact residential shelters have the following features:
Low impact on the environment • They have no foundations. • The materials used have a low embodied energy. • The materials used are predominantly locally sourced and reclaimed. • They can be easily dismantled and removed with no damage to the land on which they sit. • They are not connected to any mains services.
Low visual impact • They are sensitively sited along hedges, so as to respect and enhance the profile of the field. • They are sensitively located in order to minimize off site views and avoid any visual impact on the wider landscape. • By their nature they are curvaceous and in keeping with nature’s shapes. • They are of a size proportionate to their environment.
We feel that these features sit well within the policies CS5 & CS6 ‘Affordable Housing and Affordable Housing on Windfall sites’.
“Consideration should be given to producing a guidance on sustainable construction, covering specifically matters such as reducing the use of minerals, recycling (and using recycled products), cutting energy and water consumption, minimizing waste and CO2 , both during the construction phase, but also by design over the decade or centuries that will follow.” (paragraph 7.7 Sustainability Appraisal Report, June 2005)
Current situation There are currently 16 temporary low-impact structures on the holding. Seven of these are in full time use as residential shelters, i.e. they are the only home of the people who live there. Other structures include a compost toilet, a firewood store, a tool shed, a timber storage, and communal bender used as a shared kitchen, meeting space, library and workers’ rest room. The remaining 4 structures are in temporary use for either sleeping or storage purposes. The positioning of these structures is shown on map 3.
Landmatters agrees to comply with the Fifteen Criteria for Sustainable Development in the Countryside (refer to appendix 4).
Water
Local Plan Review G3.33 DEV6: Protection of Air and Water “Development will be required to have no adverse impact on air quality, surface or groundwater quality and quantity, or on aquatic habitats.”
SAR p.26 “Protect and enhance the water environment: increase efficient use and reuse of water resources”
At present there is only one significant water source on the land – the stream at the bottom of the hill. We understand it to be quite clean due to the presence of Caddis fly larvae, Bullheads and other fresh water wildlife indicators. This has been confirmed by the Dart Water Catchment Project.
The geology of the land is free draining shillet (Staddon Grits), so most of the rainwater falling on the top of the hill and the northern slopes will be filtered through our soil into the stream, which feeds into the River Dart. For this reason we will make sure that whatever we do on the land will not be detrimental to the life of the stream. This includes avoiding harmful agricultural fertilizers and other chemicals, making sure there will be no run-off due to soil erosion, and siting compost toilets away from any potential ground water contamination points.
The water needs of the holding will be provided by more than one source (each element supported by many functions).
1) A well/borehole will supply drinking water and some sanitation requirements. Funds have been secured for this. Work to commence as soon as contractor confirmed. No underground water to be used for irrigation unless all rainwater supplies run dry.
2) Rainwater collection: butts collecting from roof guttering and elsewhere into closed systems for washing and irrigation.
3) Grey water filtration systems/water recycling: all waste water to be filtered before being reused for irrigation (see Waste Management and Recycling Policy).
Our projected water usage is well below standard estimates for ‘domestic’ use due to a limited number of taps, an absence of flush toilets, and our commitment to ‘conscious usage’ and minimised wastage.
Renewable Energy
Our first principle is to minimise our energy consumption, then to use small-scale renewable energy sources. (We currently have no plans for large wind turbines and understand that this would require separate permission.) Current situation • Landmatters is not connected to mains utilities. • The shelters we live in are small and compact. • Our heating is provided by wood-burning stoves. • For cooking we use stoves and a modest amount of bottled gas. • Our energy use is further reduced by such measures as cooking shared meals and adequately insulating residential shelters. • We are using 12v solar power on the settlement to provide low voltage lighting, mobile phone charging, radio, computers and the occasional film screening. • There are no diesel or petrol generators used on the land. • Use of hand tools as appropriate and power tools are charged using solar electricity. There is the occasional use of chainsaws when practicable. • Our way of life ensures that collectively we use far less energy than a similar number of people living in more conventional dwellings. Future • Involve ourselves in the creation of a local ‘Energy descent’ action plan. For more information refer to www.transitionculture.org. • Source more efficient stoves with additional water heating and cooking functions. • Improve insulation of residential shelters. • Install passive solar water-heating systems. • Investigate other renewable energy sources and install as appropriate. • Continue reducing consumption of non-renewable energy sources.
Our commitment to using renewable energy sources sits well within current government policies to encourage such use (see Devon County Structure Plan CO11, 4.67 and 4.68, Local Plan Review 2001 G3.42, PPS22).
[Photo bender and garden]
Ecology and Bio-diversity
The study and application of ecology, and the conservation and enhancement of the bio-diversity of the land, are the key principles of Permaculture, and there is much reference to them in the Management Plan (see appendix 1) (Local Plan Review G4.28).
This is also in keeping with the government’s White Paper, Chapter 10: Restoring and Maintaining Wildlife Diversity and the Natural Environment “We will do this by promoting agricultural practices which enhance biodiversity; ensuring that the adverse effects on wildlife and its habitats of other necessary activities are avoided or minimised; making sure that everybody is conscious of their responsibilities towards maintaining biodiversity; pursuing action plans for priority species and habitats; and addressing future threats such as alien and invasive species and climate change.” (DEFRA White Paper “Our Countryside: The Future – a Fair Deal for Rural England”, 2000)
Transport
Climate change and public policy concerning traffic and new developments have made us acutely aware of our need to control the movement of vehicles to and from our land. The Structure Plan’s policy TR5 describes a hierarchy of modes of transport identical to that adopted in our management plan, i.e. walking, cycling, public transport, private vehicles.
For the past three years we have co-ordinated journeys, used minibuses, cycled and taken the bus, and asked our visitors to do the same (TR1, 2). This way we have generated only minimal traffic. Our intention, as stated in our management plan, is to “minimise where practically possible, the use of motor vehicles and their impact on land, landscape and community, whilst promoting sustainable transport initiatives. To provide sufficient on-site parking for Co-op shared vehicles and visitors” (see TR1, 3).
Our visitors have been happy to co-operate in this and understand the need “to minimise the impact of transport on the environment” (TR1, 6), suggesting that the Council's policies on transport reflect the public's awareness of the need to reduce CO2 emissions.
While new development usually entails increased traffic, our proposal of mixed use – work, leisure, residential – intends to reduce the need to travel (TR2). This is encouraged in the Local Plan Review 2001, G9.12 and G9.15.
“Cycling is increasingly being recognised as an economical, healthy and environmentally friendly form of transport for local journeys. The Council will work with others to help change public perception of cycling in the South Hams for the better.” (Local Plan 1996 6.51)
By clearing paths through our woods a route has been created linking Allaleigh hamlet with Tuckenhay, joining the established green lanes and cycle routes (Structure Plan TR7, 5.47, 5.54).
We actively promote safe cycling, for example when we asked 30 Steiner School students to arrive and leave the site by bike. This required bicycle maintenance, road safety and navigation sessions prior to the visit and therefore increased the number of students able and willing to cycle in the area (Structure Plan TR5, 5.51).
Other features of our transport strategy are:
Visitors and co-op members are requested to use bus, cycle and walking wherever possible. Information on bus timetables and cycle routes are supplied (the land in question is within easy reach of major bus and cycle routes).
If it is necessary for visitors/members to use a vehicle they are directed to the land via a route that avoids Allaleigh hamlet.
Volunteers are picked up from town in mini-buses or directed to public transport/cycle routes (Local Plan 1996 6.38, Local Plan Review 2001 G9.17).
A vehicle co-ordinator with a mobile phone co-ordinates lift sharing to and from the project. Visitors are also asked to liaise with the vehicle co-ordinator.
The Co-op operates a vehicle-sharing policy, with payment reflecting 'real' costs, to avoid unnecessary usage.
Co-op vehicles to use bio-fuels where possible.
The Co-op to research alternative modes of transport, e.g. electric bicycles, pony and trap, etc.
Waste Management and Recycling
“Reduction of waste, its reuse and recovery, and the recycling of waste materials are of increasing significance in dealing with this issue. The council is firmly committed to a sustainable approach to waste management.” (Local Plan 1996 section 3.69)
The Co-operative’s approach to waste management is to:
RETHINK • Buy products with no packaging, biodegradable or recyclable packaging. • Buy products with longevity or replaceable parts. • Bulk buy food stuffs from ethical suppliers. • Work towards self-reliance in food and commodities. REDUCE • Minimise the use of products with unnecessary packaging. • Maximise efficiency in water usage. REUSE • Reuse water, containers, clothing, etc. RECYCLE • Recycle glass, plastic and metal at local recycling point.
Water • Waste water will be recycled through grey water filtration systems: sand and gravel filters, reeds and plants to remove particles, detergents and cleansers before using to water trees and gardens. • Only biodegradable soaps and detergents to be used.
Composting • Raw vegetable waste, paper and card to be composted, using hot and cold composting methods. • Cooked food waste to be fed to animals or added to worm bin.
Compost toilet • The compost toilet separates solid and liquid waste. Liquid waste is added to hay which breaks it down to produce a nitrogen and carbon rich compost. Solid waste is mixed with sawdust and 'effective micro-organisms' to aid decomposition. The result is an odourless manure suitable for use on young trees or in the production of comfrey fertiliser.
No uncomposted solids or liquids will be disposed of to ground.
DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE
We are aware of the presumption in planning policies that development should be directed away from the open countryside. However, many more recent policies point to the need to place people back at the heart of our countryside. There is a persistent view that human habitation is detrimental to the environment. Landmatters seeks to demonstrate, in a modern context, that sensitive and sustainable development can benefit and enhance the rural landscape.
Access to land is an integral part of the proposed low-impact development. The link between human habitation and land management is a central tenet of Permaculture. To establish a fully functioning model of sustainability and low-impact we need to live in the same place that we grow our food, look after animals, harvest our fuel, conduct educational events, etc.
We are addressing the concern that homes in the countryside create more car traffic (see Transport), and we do not expect to make new demands on existing structures as we are local to the area already and, where we are using local services, it is of benefit to the local economy (see Rural Regeneration).
This land is specifically suited for this kind of permaculture holding because it already has a variety of ecosystems with which we can work and expand upon. It provides various resources such as the woodland, the species-rich hedges, the stream and the wild-flower-rich unimproved pasture (ideal for organic/ bio-dynamic conversion). Its woodland, views, beauty and biodiversity offer a rich opportunity for recreational and educational activities for guests, volunteers and school groups. At the same time, being on the top and largely to the north of the hill, it is well protected on all sides by hedges, making it a suitable location to be discreet, and activities can easily be blended in with the surroundings.
The proximity to Totnes and Dartmouth, and in the case of BTCV - Plymouth, makes it easy to maintain links with our larger community, which we hope to benefit. We are also within a mile of the main Dartmouth to Totnes bus route, which is absolutely vital to us for meeting our transport policy agreements.
Further, it adjoins the hamlet of Allaleigh, making it a reasonably appropriate place for the addition of dwellings according to need. Historically Allaleigh was a thriving village. Cornworthy Parish’s population in 1821 was 607, by 2001 it had almost halved to 368. Regeneration would not be possible with conventional housing (even if it were to get permission) as this would be too expensive for agricultural workers.
Landmatters suggests that its application fits the following policies:
South Hams Local Plan Review 2001 SHDC 3 Notes: Essential Need for Dwellings
This note, on p.22, states: “… Material to the consideration of such applications will be whether an existing farm dwelling has previously been sold and the size of the proposed dwelling in relation to the size of the holding. Agricultural need also embraces the essential housing requirements of horticulture and forestry. In very rare cases of exceptional, individual need, the Council is willing to consider special housing provision in connection with other appropriate forms of rural business.”
We are not aware of any farm dwelling associated with our land and if there were it is no longer attached to it. The maximum size of our yurts and benders is very modest in relation to the size of the holding. As well as agriculture and forestry, we will be engaged in a number of ancillary rural businesses (see appendix 3).
South Hams Core Strategy 2005 C58 Development Outside the development boundaries: “In all cases the development will only be permitted providing that there would be little adverse effect on the character, appearance, wildlife, and amenities of the area, and where possible development should seek to contribute positively to its surroundings”
Agenda 21 chapter 7: “Access to land resources is an essential component of sustainable low-impact lifestyles […] The objective is to provide for land requirements of human settlement development through environmentally sound physical planning and land use so as to ensure access to land to all households.”
(County Structure Plan policy ST5) “In rural areas (villages and countryside) development should be limited to that required to meet local needs and promote rural regeneration, where this can be accommodated without generating unnecessary travel”.
PPS7: “15. Planning policies should provide a positive framework for facilitating sustainable development that supports traditional land-based activities and makes the most of new leisure and recreational opportunities that require a countryside location. Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced.”
RURAL REGENERATION
In the face of current agricultural problems, the exodus of young people and the lack of affordable housing and jobs in the countryside, we hope that Landmatters’s approach will offer some contribution to rural regeneration.
Landmatters is contributing to the local economy by buying (and in the future selling) local produce. We have employed a number of local contractors, e.g. fencer, digger drivers, mechanic, horse logger, forester, course leaders, sustainability consultants (for soil conservation, soil type, project development), and conservation consultants (for biodiversity conservation and grants). Visitors are encouraged to stay in the local pubs, B&Bs and caravan sites and to use public transport. The conservation of the grassland has been managed in liaison with local farmers to arrange the grazing of stock and cutting of hay (this is an interim solution, long term Landmatters will have its own grazing stock).
[Photo fence post donking]
Our approach is in accord with the government’s view of the future. They also recommend ‘removing unnecessary regulatory burdens’ to achieve this vision: “• Many more farmers will turn a positive approach to the environment to their own economic advantage, with payments for environmental ‘goods' that the nation wants - flourishing wildlife, living landscapes, a protected heritage and opportunities for leisure. • The growing market opportunities for sustainable products will enable the production and environmental functions to be combined via the marketplace for an increasing proportion of the industry. • There will still be room for large and small farms, full-time and part-time businesses. But farms - including entrepreneurial family farms - will be more diverse in terms of structure, business organisation and the mix of agricultural and non-agricultural activities. • Farmers will take up opportunities to learn, develop and exploit new skills and new techniques.” (Chapter 8, DEFRA White Paper “Our Countryside: The Future – a Fair Deal for Rural England”, 2000).
We aim to create diverse and sustainable livelihoods from the land - agricultural, forestry, educational and ancillary enterprises; thereby we feel we would be contributing to, and indeed demonstrating one example of a working countryside.
The government wants “a significant increase in woodland cover across England; and we want to encourage tree planting whose main priorities are visual, environmental and recreational as well as commercial.” (DEFRA White Paper “Our Countryside: The Future – a Fair Deal for Rural England”, 2000).
[Photo of Chris tree planting]
This winter Landmatters and volunteers have planted 500 trees that will form a windbreak to improve the viability of growing other crops in the most south-facing field. It will also provide more wildlife habitat, some berries, and willow for basketry. We have engaged local people in doing this and we received very positive feedback. In the future we will be planting coppice for woodworking and firewood, and a variety of food-bearing trees. We are working closely with local group Trees for Health, which incorporates educational, recreational and environmental aspects.
The government wants an accessible countryside where “people of all backgrounds should be able to enjoy attractive and accessible countryside.” (DEFRA White Paper “Our Countryside: The Future – a Fair Deal for Rural England”, 2000)
Over the past two years Landmatters has hosted various courses, accessible to people on low income, such as hedgelaying and Permaculture design.
We regularly invite people of different backgrounds to come and enjoy the land through volunteer days with Community Supported Farming (CSF), BTCV and Trees for Health, and we hope to increase this kind of sharing in the future. We have been approached by an organisation in Plymouth that is organising more access to the countryside for inner-city women with young children, and we look forward to developing our contacts with them. We are also working with the new local Forest School and Woodcraft Folk groups who will be teaching children on our land in future. At present we are liaising with The Dart Catchment Project to offer school visits and field trips to monitor the wildlife of our stream.
“Set a new direction for farming • […] to develop new business and benefit from support for conserving and enhancing the countryside •and by helping farm diversification through better operation of the planning system and by consulting on rate relief.” (DEFRA White Paper “Our Countryside: The Future – a Fair Deal for Rural England”, 2000)
We see ourselves as a part of this “new direction for farming”, with a plan for many and varied enterprises that support and enhance the environment and wildlife; in this way we are already doing what the government is trying to encourage farmers to do. We hope that the planning system can use the “better operation of the planning system” to support our proposal.
PPS7 is highly relevant to our current situation and aims when it states: “to raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas through the promotion of: - thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, ensuring people have decent places to live by improving the quality and sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods; - sustainable economic growth and diversification; - good quality, sustainable development that respects and, where possible, enhances local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside; and - continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued landscapes and environmental resources.
“To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors where farming achieves high environmental standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and manages valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes both directly and indirectly to rural economic diversity; is itself competitive and profitable; and provides high quality products that the public wants.”
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
“All countries should, as appropriate, support the shelter efforts of the urban and rural poor by adopting and/or adapting existing codes and regulations to facilitate their access to land, finance and low cost building materials.” (Agenda 21 Ch. 7) The Local Development Framework recognises that the Council's top priority is to secure a supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of local people at affordable levels (para. 4.1), including in rural areas. This is reiterated in the Sustainability Appraisal Report June 2005.
Central and local governments have specifically high targets for providing affordable housing, the Community Strategy for Devon states that 3450 new affordable homes are needed per year. Challenge 1.1 of the Community Strategy is to “make sure everyone has the chance of a home at a price they can afford”. We have never been aware of any rental accommodation available in Allaleigh and with local houses selling for around £500,000 they are out of our reach. The DEFRA White Paper 2000 recognises this countrywide problem in para.5.3.2 “There is a particular problem in small rural settlements, where often all the new housing has recently been executive homes that local people cannot afford to buy.”
The South Hams Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing (May 2004) says in section 3.24, “the Council is determined to play a major role through both its planning and housing functions to ensure that these locally generated housing needs are met” and “to fill this gap, sites are required for low cost housing... self build schemes…and similar developments”.
We have provided not only the site but also the scheme and are therefore in a good position to receive support from local planners in this regard. With our emphasis on sustainability and minimising our environmental footprint, our needs are more specific than general housing demand and section 3.26 becomes relevant: “in accordance with government guidelines the release of sites to secure provision for local needs will often be additional to the provision already made to meet general housing demands. This recognises that particular local needs may justify the release of land that would not normally be allocated to meet general housing demands.”
The Local Plan 1996 allows, in exceptional circumstances, for small housing sites outside the Development Boundaries, with provisions (see Appendix 5). We believe that we go a long way towards satisfying these requirements - the land adjoins the hamlet; the structures blend in with the environment; we are all living locally and working on the land, as will any future resident who may replace any of us; we will be drawing very little on local services, except buses; and we are not part of the local AONB or any other conservation area.
Policy SHDC2 recognises that exceptions to normal policy may need to be made on sites not otherwise considered for development. Appendix H lists Cornworthy and Blackawton, our two nearest settlements. Other locations are not considered sustainable locations for housing. However, with our more stringent sustainability policies and the work we are undertaking, we consider our site appropriate for the type of housing we are proposing. The 2004 SDHC Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing details the case for Rural Exceptions (Section 6).
Criteria that need to be fulfilled are:
“The development will meet or help to meet a proven and specific need for affordable housing ... which would not otherwise be met.” There is a significant shortfall in the provision of affordable housing in the area. Most of the residents on the land in question are on low-incomes, would qualify for housing benefit and would need to be rehoused if forced to leave their land. Our specific need for housing very close to the land is unlikely ever to be met under such circumstances, and our need to live on the land we are working cannot be met elsewhere.
“The development is within or on the edge of a village...” Our site is within the village envelope, having housing on both sides of our entrance. Historically there were more houses than at present. The vendors of our land were brought up in what is now a ruin several metres out of the village from the last inhabited building. The hamlet does not have its own facilities, but we do use the public transport which is within walking distance.
“There will be no diminution of environmental quality.” Although there is a common preconception that human habitation in a rural area automatically results in the diminution of environmental quality, and this is normally true of environmentally unfriendly developments, the main principle of permaculture is that humans can, and indeed must, integrate in a positive way into the natural environment. Our intention is to enhance the environmental quality through our management of the land, including the soil, woodland, wild flower meadows, hedgerows and livestock, and by increasing public access to local people, volunteers and students. By living on the land, the reduction of our ecological footprint, e.g. car use, fossil fuel use, reduced material consumption, increased recycling and sufficiency within the group for childcare, care of sick members, care of animals, site security, mental and physical wellbeing, and social life, can only increase the quality of the wider environment.
“Secure arrangements ...” Through our use of a co-op as a legal structure we are ensuring that, even if present individuals leave, they can only be replaced by others who agree to the co-op's principles.
Section 4, para. 4.5 lists types of affordable houses for sale. The Do-It-Yourself-Shared Ownership option is the closest description but it also states that the list “does not preclude the provision of other types of affordable housing.” Para. 4.6 “The Council is keen to encourage a range of housing to meet a range of needs for different types and sites of houses ...”
HUMAN RIGHTS
For several members of the Co-operative, low-impact dwelling has been their way of life for many years, in some cases for over a decade, staying temporarily on other people’s land and supplying seasonal farm labour. Feeling the need for greater self-reliance, they have now made the temporary structures at Landmatters their homes.
We see living close to nature as highly important for informing the shift towards a more sustainable future. It represents an expression of our consciences and an exercise of our human rights, particularly articles 8) Right to respect for private and family life; 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and 10) Freedom of expression. Previous planning approvals that have taken these into account are Kings Hill Collective, Somerset, and Caroline Barry of Butleigh, Somerset.
PPS7 ANNEX A: AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY AND OTHER OCCUPATIONAL DWELLINGS
We recognise the need for strict control over development in the open countryside to prevent abuse by speculators, as laid out in PPS7 Annex A. However, in the case of this Permaculture holding the guidance is not entirely relevant to evaluate our multifaceted proposal (see OTHER HOLDINGS THAT RECEIVED PLANNING PERMISSION). Nevertheless, the following section will address the guidance in Annex A to explain our enterprises and some of the many reasons why it is essential for us to live on the land.
Temporary permission for temporary dwellings Our proposal for temporary permission for temporary dwellings conforms to the guidance given for new dwellings that support new farming activity and other rural enterprises. They should be “provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can be easily dismantled, or other temporary accommodation.” This is true for us (see Shelter).
Evidence of firm intention There is a request for “clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned”. As well as work carried out so far (see map 4), much of our work on the land has been research, assessment and preparation. We have extensive plans for carrying out agriculture, horticulture and forestry (see map 5).
To show our firm intention to carry out agro-forestry activity, we list below some things we have invested in for this purpose: • we have developed a woodland management plan and started to implement it; • building a timber-framed barn. Estimated completion summer 2006; • we have laid a neglected hedge (283m) to make it stock proof and wind breaking; • acquisition of a 2nd hand 4x4 and trailer; • we have planted a new windbreak to improve microclimate for crops; • we have re-roofed an old shed to house some of our tools and materials; • creation of a tree nursery; • fencing to separate sheep from crops.
[Photo of horses]
In addition, we include below a list of courses undertaken by co-op members that have equipped us with relevant skills and thus “ability to develop the enterprise concerned”:
• Applied Biological Science Degree, University of Bath • Biodiversity survey techniques of insects and fungi - PhD, Bath • BSc Hons in Landscape Design and plant science – University of Sheffield • General Certificate of Organic Horticulture, Royal Horticultural Society • Organic Husbandry and Holistic Studies, City and Guilds, Capel Manor Horticultural college (one year) • Garden Design, City and Guilds, Capel Manor Horticultural college (one year) • Woodland Management course • Chainsaw Certification course • 2-week Permaculture and Community course • Craft courses, e.g. furniture, timber-frame building, basketry, willow structures and growing • Sustainable Land Use (3-month residential) • Permaculture Design (72-hour course) • Coppicing and Green Woodworking • Poultry Keeping • Eco-barn building • Earth rendering • Cob building • ‘Caretaking Nature’ • Bushcraft and survival skills • Biofuels • Wind and Solar Energy Systems • Yurt building • Soil Management • Grassland Management • Hedgelaying • ‘When Nature Meets Culture’ • Business Structures • Scything • Entry Level Stewardship seminar • ‘Herb Growing as a Business’ • Ecology • Biodynamic growing • First Aid At Work
Perhaps the strongest indication of ability to develop the enterprise is the level of our commitment to make this project flourish. Evidence of this is reflected in many of the letters of support (see Appendix 7). Furthermore, dedication is needed to live this lifestyle – it is not an easy option.
Functional need Paragraph 4 of Annex A states that a “functional test is necessary to establish whether it is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times.” We suggest that there is a general need for us to be present on this complex holding for the following reasons:
Permaculture It is necessary for the group to live on the land to effectively practice the design system of Permaculture because: • human habitation is an integral aspect of Permaculture’s holistic approach; • the design is based on continued observation of the land and its natural systems, to be in tune with the land one has to be present; • when managing the land by a low-impact permaculture system, the much lower level of mechanisation means a much higher labour requirement than on a modern mechanical farm; • the multiplicity of tasks of a Permaculture holding needs to be carried out across a wide stretch of hours and days, i.e. beyond a 9-5 presence. • the permaculture principle of ‘zoning’ is that whatever needs the most human attention should be placed nearest to the centre of human activity (see fig. 1). Zone 0 is the ‘centre’ of the layout, the home itself. Zone 1 is the growing area, this enables maximum linking between the two; • the development of communities is seen as one of the goals of Permaculture. Within a co-operative community we have the opportunity to work together and support each other. Also the sharing of resources is more economic and sustainable; • as education is a big part of permaculture, we need to be on the land to oversee volunteers, people attending courses and visitors; • use of renewable energy and on-site resources, such as sustainably harvested wood to heat homes, and roof rainwater, could not be used as efficiently in a conventional dwelling off site; • cycling of resources and minimisation of waste is only possible if we can do so on site, i.e. composting, grey water processing, etc.
Agricultural and ancillary tasks that are scheduled for the next few years include the following: - Developing the food growing enterprise (including preparing vegetable beds: digging, raising, adding dung/compost/mulch; Sowing seeds, potting on, planting out, weeding, watering, pest control; building compost bins; installing further rainwater harvesting systems; planting of fruit bushes, vegetables and herbs; setting up bird netting over fruit; set up mushroom cultivation logs); - Improving our storage capacity (including building barn; putting roof on 2nd shed; restoring Linhay); - Tree planting for food and wood products (including fencing, mulch material and guards; ongoing care); - Stock keeping (building of chicken or duck house and pen; acquiring poultry - daily care; building of stable for donkeys or ponies; acquiring equines - daily care; acquiring small flock of sheep – daily care; honey bees; improve and install fences; hedgelaying; repairing gates); - Conservation management (including further ecological observation to monitor species); - Management of woods and controlling squirrels; - Management of grassland (including grazing, scything meadow by stream and steep bit of entrance field; controlling of bracken, docks and thistles); - Ancillary enterprises (including herb drying; preserving foodstuffs; woodcrafts; making building materials); - Improving workers’ facilities.
[Photo of Sacha in the peas]
Apart from the multiplicity of these tasks, several of them require on-site presence: - intimate care for seedlings - slug picking at dusk - protection of newly planted trees from deer - protection of stock from predators - frost protection of plants and fruit trees with fleece - biodynamic agriculture – often need to plant at night - security for tools and equipment
All of the above has to be juggled with child care requirements interspersed throughout the day.
Annex A’s criterion “the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned” is relevant in that there are no affordable houses in Allaleigh or anywhere within walking distance of our land (the selling price of a house that became available in 2005 was £565 000), and the costs of commuting, rent and bills on another home would render any subsistence-based livelihoods that we aim to develop on the site non-viable.
Financial viability (see also appendix 3) Annex A, paragraph 12 requests “clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis”. Landmatters Co-op has been managing its finances successfully to date, all debt repayments are being met and annual returns have been approved by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). We have attracted various grants and managed them well.
A business and enterprise plan will be forwarded in March after finalising it with a financial consultant on the 18 February (for a list of prospective enterprises see appendix 3). Although we aim to create a Permaculture enterprise that is fully integrated into, and is an asset to, the local economy and community, it is important to note that our focus is on sustainability, not on obtaining a large turnover. It is not necessary for us to attain the minimum agricultural wage due to the advantages of living a self-supporting low-impact lifestyle. Also, Annex A, 3 (ii) states that the need for “permanent dwellings relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture and does not relate to a part-time requirement”. As we are applying for temporary permission, our financial income from the land can be considered part-time whilst in transition. Most members of the co-operative are self-employed and/or working part-time to provide for themselves, and therefore not in receipt of state benefits.
Our living expenses will be much reduced by producing our own food, not paying rent for a house or business premises (there will however be no sale of goods directly from the land) and not being connected to the utilities. The level of income required to meet our expenditure is therefore much less than for those living in a more conventional fashion (refer to Projected Livelihoods section in appendix 3). Paragraph 8 of Annex A recommends that: “authorities should take a realistic approach to the level of profitability, taking account of the nature of the enterprise concerned. Some enterprises which aim to operate broadly on a subsistence basis, but which nonetheless provide wider benefits (e.g. in managing attractive landscapes or wildlife habitats), can be sustained on relatively low financial returns.” (PPS7, Annex A, 8)
Case law This guidance is also in accordance with the following case law concerning the tests for agricultural workers’ dwellings used in a case in which Arthur Petter was refused permission to live on a holding managed under Permaculture. This decision was overturned by the High Court, which decided that there was no need to satisfy the financial test for an agricultural workers’ dwelling in the light of the unusual functional circumstances. Lord Justice Sedley concluded that the tests for agricultural workers’ dwellings may not cover all cases where residence on a holding is an issue: “As agreed on all sides, the policy (PPG 7 financial test) is to stop bogus or over-optimistic applications and to ensure that the relevant agricultural activity is likely to continue […] The inspector should have reviewed whether the operation, in its own terms, had a proper chance of continuing over the period for which planning permission was sought […] Mr Petter’s operation should, in the context of this policy, be considered in its own terms and not against abstract financial criteria suitable for a normal determination.” Lord Justice Sedley, in the same case added: “Viability is there for an identifiable purpose: to ensure that any residential planning permission is both ancillary and proportionate to a true agricultural use. In most cases profitability will be a very good indicator of this […] But […] circumstances will vary infinitely and a margin of flexibility may be needed to accommodate them. So here an unexpected but undoubtedly genuine application by someone living what amounts to subsistence farming requires not a rigid application of criteria designed for commercial agriculture, but a practical adaptation of those criteria to secure the underlying purposes of the policy. I do not accept […] that to do this is to introduce impermissible personal circumstances into the planning judgment. It is to make the best feasible approach to a necessary judgment on the future needs of the agricultural land in question.” (Arthur Sidney Petter vs Secretary of State of the Environment, OBCOF 1998/0725/ 415, 15 March 1999)
Finally we would like to draw attention to Paragraph 15 of Annex A which states that “dwellings associated with other rural based enterprises [should be assessed applying] the same criteria and principles in paragraphs 3-13 of this Annex, in a manner and to the extent that they are relevant to the nature of the enterprise concerned.”
OTHER HOLDINGS THAT RECEIVED PLANNING PERMISSION
Landmatters is not the first group to try to establish a right to live and work on their land in an ecologically benign way. A number of communities and families have been given permission to do so. As the development of policy from 1996-2006 shows, the trajectory of government guidance is all going in one direction - allowing greater leniency for those who can prove they are serious about sustainability. Below are the reasons given by the authorities.
- Brickhurst Farm, Kent, Permaculture community APP/M2270/A/94/241023/P2, 5 January 1995 The Inspector in the Brickhurst farm appeal accepted the need to live on the land to be “in tune” with it and that Permaculture farming is a material consideration: “7. The organic element is a key part of your case, particularly Permaculture which your client has studied and intends to use. Many bodies and individuals involved in Permaculture supported the application, and you urged the adoption of a holistic approach; for Permaculture, the farmer should live on his land to be in tune with it, and his need should not be judged only on produce and livestock. 8. I regard the intended farming method as a material consideration, and from the evidence about Permaculture, I believe that this holding should not be approached on the basis of a traditional farm.”
- Tinkers Bubble, Somerset, Sustainable land-based community APP/C/94/R3325/635596-635607, 17 August 1995 The Inspector stated that he agreed . . . . . . “with the Inspector in Pembury that the agricultural method being used is a legitimate material consideration and that such a project should not be judged by the criteria of a normal farm . . . The alternative lifestyle and the form of the agriculture are, from the evidence presented, manifestly part of the one experiment. It follows that the appellants, if they are to make this experiment, need to live on their land in the countryside. Even if the way of life could be separated from the form of agriculture, I am very doubtful whether it could be acceptably carried on in a town or village, surrounded by people who live a more conventional lifestyle. My conclusion is that the Appellants do have a special need.”
- Steward Wood, Dartmoor, Low impact community Planning appeal: APP/J9497/A/01/1063114, 3 September, 2001 . Enforcement appeal: APP/J9497/C/01/1067412, 12 Aug 2002 . Dartmoor National Park Authority v Secretary of State, 28 January 2003 In 2001 a Section 78 appeal was dismissed, partly on the grounds that the proposal did not meet the tests in Annex I (although it was accepted that this guidance was not “completely relevant”). A subsequent Section 174 appeal was allowed in August 2002. Part of the Inspector’s reasoning was as follows: “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 I5 to I13 of Annex I to this development, because there is no intention of the development becoming permanent. . . .”
- King's Hill, Somerset APP/Q3305/C/95/637457, 637503,637589. APP/Q3305/A/95/248044 & A/99/102/8348, 1999 Secretary of State grants permanent planning permission for the use of the land for the siting of up to 16 low impact dwellings within a woodland garden setting.
- Quickenwood, Sussex, low-impact smallholding APP/C1435/C/03/1114412, October 2003 Two dwellings (for two families) were recently given permission in an AONB in Sussex, where the primarily functional need was to live a sustainable lifestyle. The inspector’s reasoning was this... “The Local Plan ...follows Annex I of PPG7 by setting out functional and financial test to scrutinise proposals in order to prevent unnecessary and unjustified development. However, they have been drawn up with conventional commercial farming and forestry activities in mind and are not, therefore, entirely appropriate in application to a subsistence way of living… 19. ...the underlying objective of this venture which is to live a sustainable and ultimately self-sufficient subsistence lifestyle. It has been pointed out that some of the projects, such as the remedial work to the woodland could be carried out if the Appellants lived elsewhere. However, the holistic approach would be lost and much of what the appellants seek to achieve, for example in recycling and utilising renewable energy, could not be realized to the same degree living in a conventional dwelling. In my opinion, the fundamental aims behind the Appellants’ venture on this site cannot be achieved unless they are to live there and in that respect a functional, if unconventional, need for the dwellings can be said to exist. 24. ...To take a more rigid approach to the application of policy would be to deny the Appellants the opportunity to live a lifestyle which has at its heart the principles of sustainability. Such principles are a fundamental part of current government planning policy although few people would envisage the extreme way of living that is proposed here. In this respect, a distinction can be drawn with those who have a personal preference to live in the countryside because it is a nice place to live. Here the countryside location is necessary in order to enable the Appellants to live the lifestyle they have chosen...”
- Fivepenny Farm, Dorset, low-impact smallholding APP/F1230/C/04/1162420 March 2005 The inspector recognised the need for the two families to reside on the land to make their enterprise work. He applied the assessment criteria for the occupational dwellings “to the extent that they are relevant to the enterprise concerned” (PPS7 Annex A, paragraph 15) and further stated: “22. Whilst conventional agriculture places emphasis on production and financial efficiency, enterprises such as the appellants’, whilst necessarily paying due attention to such matter, also attach considerable weight to issues such as sustainability, diversity, and an organic approach to soil fertility and pest control. The time is long past when such an approach could be regarded as eccentric or utopian, and a modern approach recognises that there is room in agriculture for farms embracing both approaches. The numerous references in PPS7 to the importance of sustainability lends support to such a view.” 23. … I consider that, whilst the degree to which the appellants embrace self-sufficiency in their home life may be a matter of personal choice, the form of agriculture they have chosen is not. Against the background of government advice the choice of this type of farming is no more an expression of merely personal preference than the choice of anyone who decides to pursue more conventional farming methods.”
- Hugletts Wood Farm APP/C1435/C/00/1050705, 24c July 2001 Huglett’s Wood is a good example of an appeal being allowed for a multifunctional smallholding where none of the individual components on their own justified living on the land, but where the complex mixture of activities was seen to amount to a functional need: “43. However, the scale of the individual components of the range of activities undertaken by the appellant and his partner is undoubtedly small. Many are seasonal. Much also lies in future acquisitions and development. Each component at its present level would not, in itself, justify a temporary dwelling, or at best, would provide only marginal support. 44. Nonetheless, this is a complex enterprise where there is a substantial inter-relationship between the individual component uses. The organic nature of the enterprise, as existing and as intended to be developed, and the intimate working relationship with the land and stock brings with it an increased workload that provides a contrast to the mechanized, large-scale methods of conventional farming practices. To my mind, the nature of the operation and its needs are far removed from those of more conventional farming operations that advice in PPG7 seeks to address. That is not to say advice in PPG7 or the Council’s policies are not relevant in this case, but I believe they need to be addressed in context. […] The future success of the enterprise appears to rely on the ability of the operators to maintain and manage the inter-relationship between the activities that, in turn, largely depends on the skill and expertise of the appellant and his partner. Such a range of activity would in my view, demand expert attention, often at short notice and often at unsocial hours. It would be difficult to envisage the way in which such an operation might be carried out successfully and ordinarily other than from a dwelling close at hand.”
- Pentiddy Community Woodland, Pentiddy, Cornwall Temporary permission granted for a temporary dwelling, 2005 Pentiddy was granted permission on their first application to enable them to carry out land-based activities according to sustainable principles following recognised Permaculture principles and sustainable forestry standards.
- Plants for a Future Appeal : T/APP/W1145/A/99/1034645/P2 , 1 June 2000. Plants for a Future is vegan-organic research charity that is developing a demonstration site. They received permission based on their philosophy towards sustainable food production: “29. An important consideration would seem to me to be the scheme’s novel, but sustainable method of food production which would be wholly compatible with the underlying purpose of the Government’s commitment to the kind of development whereby current needs might be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. 33. The temporary dwelling would ... facilitate 24 hour hands-on supervision of the plants, an important part of the appellant’s philosophical approach to food production. These matters do not strictly accord with the requirements set out in PPG7, but seem to me to be valid supporting considerations in the circumstances of the case.”
Last Updated ( Monday, 24 March 2008 )
Landmatters Film Project
Written by M. Freeland
Saturday, 08 December 2007
Landmatters Film Project
update: the film is nearly done now!
7 years in the making! The film tells the story of the beginnings of the project and the planning battle Landmatters had to fight...
If you want to purchase a copy of the one hour long documentary, send an email through this website and you will get an email once it's ready to be send out!
Help is needed with distribution and finance. If anyone can help please get in touch through the contact page of this website.
Government planning Inspector Alan Woolnough has granted Landmatters Co-operative three years temporary planning permission for their rural Permaculture Holding.
On Thursday the 23rd August Landmatters Co-operative received the decision on their planning appeal which was heard during a four day public inquiry in Cornworthy Village Hall in July. The planning inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission for a permaculture holding integrating agriculture, forestry, education, ancillary rural enterprises and residential use subject to the ‘low-impact’ criteria set out in their planning application.
The Inspector Alan Woolnough states: “Landmatters have already achieved low levels of energy consumption, implemented wide-ranging recycling initiatives and established an ecological footprint per household far smaller than the regional average, as established by the analysis undertaken by 4th World Ecological Design”. He concludes: “the advancement of permaculture and sustainable ways of living facilitated by this project has sufficient potential value to outweigh the limited harm to other interests”.
Rooh Star who represented the group at the recent public inquiry says: “We are delighted that we have been given the opportunity to continue to develop our Permaculture holding. Preparing for the inquiry has taken a huge amount of our energy, so we are now looking forward to being able to devote our time to what we are really passionate about – working our land, living sustainably and exploring solutions to climate change and peak oil.”
Alan Woolnough states in his appeal decision that “Permaculture is now an internationally recognised means of sustainable agriculture and the subject of much academic study in recent years. Moreover, the direction of travel of emerging national policy towards ever more sustainable approaches to development and the need to address the problem of climate change is readily apparent”. He adds: “In such a context, I find there to be considerable ecological, educational and cultural benefits in further exploring permaculture.”
The landmark decision received by Landmatters this week shows that there is a need for local policies relating to such “low impact developments” as already adopted by other forward thinking councils. Landmatters has contributed to the recent public consultation on the new Local Development Framework policies, which will form the basis for all future planning decisions in the area until at least 2016. The consultation on the Development Control Core Policies and Affordable Housing policies closed on 24th August, but there is still time to comment on the policies relating to rural areas. Landmatters urges people to get involved because, as Rooh Star points out “this is possibly the last opportunity before 2016 to support our call for a policy to allow sustainable, land-based developments in the countryside while ensuring that they remain low impact.”
Rooh Star concludes: “We couldn’t have achieved what we have done without the help of our many supporters to whom we would like to say a huge thank you!” People who are interested to find out more are invited to look at the website www.landmatters.org.uk for information on upcoming events such as the Community Supported Farming (CSF) volunteer days on every second Saturday of the month, a rocket stove course from the 21-24 September and a tree seed gathering day on 25th October.
DECISION LETTER TEXT:
Appeal Decisions
Inquiry opened on 17 July 2007 Site visit made on 20 July 2007
by Alan Woolnough BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI
The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN .. 0117 372 6372 email:
gov.uk an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd. August 2007
for Communities and Local Government
Appeal A: APP/K1128/C/06/2032148 Land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL
• The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Landmatters Co-Operative Ltd against an enforcement notice issued by South Hams District Council. • The Council's reference is EN_NOT/0037/06. • The notice was issued on 8 November 2006. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is a material change of use of the land without planning permission from agriculture to a “permaculture” holding comprising a mixed use integrating agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises and residential use. • The requirements of the notice are: (1) Cease the use of the land for residential purposes; (2) Cease the use of the land for the parking overnight of motor vehicles; and (3) Remove from the land all unauthorised residential structures and structures erected for a use ancillary to a residential use. • The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is corrected and quashed and planning permission is granted in the terms set out below in the Formal Decisions.
Appeal B: APP/K1128/C/07/2039820 Land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL
• The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. • The appeal is made by Landmatters Co-Operative Ltd against an enforcement notice issued by South Hams District Council. • The Council's reference is EN_NOT/0037/06. • The notice was issued on 23 February 2007. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is a material change of use of the land without planning permission from agriculture to a “permaculture” holding comprising a mixed use integrating agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises and residential use. • The requirements of the notice are: (1) Cease the use of the land for residential purposes; (2) Cease the use of the land for the parking overnight of motor vehicles; and (3) Remove from the land all unauthorised residential structures and structures erected for a use ancillary to a residential use. • The period for compliance with the requirements is three months. • The appeal is proceeding on the grounds set out in section 174(2)(a), (f) and (g) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is corrected and quashed and planning permission is granted in the terms set out below in the Formal Decisions.
Appeal C: APP/K1128/A/06/2018778 Land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Landmatters Co-Operative Ltd against the decision of South Hams District Council. • The application ref no 13/0217/06/CU, dated 31 January 2006, was refused by notice dated 28 April 2006. • The development is described on the planning application form as ‘agriculture, forestry, plus a change of use area to include residential & educational element’. Summary of Decision: The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions as set out below in the Formal Decisions.
Preliminary matters
1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Landmatters Co-Operative Ltd against South Hams District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. 2. The Inquiry sat for four days, closing on 20 July 2007. 3. At the Inquiry the main parties agreed that the site address utilised in the above headings, rather than that used in the enforcement notices or on the planning application form, was the most appropriate and accurate. I shall therefore correct both notices accordingly. It was also agreed that, notwithstanding the description of development given on the planning application form, the wording of the alleged breach of planning control as set out in the two enforcement notices should be utilised for all three appeals. I shall make my decisions on this basis and am satisfied that there is no injustice to any party in doing so. 4. At the Inquiry the Appellants withdrew their appeal on ground (e) in respect of the enforcement notice the subject of Appeal A. Accordingly, I shall not consider any written submissions relating to that matter. 5. Although the two enforcement notices are almost identical in content, the Appeal B notice relates to a far larger area of land than the Appeal A notice. The Council advises that it served the second notice upon realising that the first did not relate to all of the land used by the Appellants for residential purposes or in their ownership. The first notice is therefore surplus to requirements and I am surprised that, in such circumstances, the Council did not simply withdraw it. However, neither its redundancy nor the fact that it did not address everything that the Council subsequently decided should be covered means that it is invalid or otherwise defective. Therefore, notwithstanding the Appellants’ contention to the contrary, these matters do not in themselves justify quashing the notice. 6. The number of dwelling units is not specified in the enforcement notices or on the planning application form, which refer solely to residential use of the land. However, the Appellants explained at the Inquiry that they seek consent for 15 dwellings but would settle for a minimum of ten. They also confirmed that they seek temporary planning permission for a period of five years. I shall consider the appeals on this basis. 7. At the Inquiry the Appellants submitted a completed unilateral planning obligation pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This provides that, in the event that planning permission is granted for this development, the landowner shall ensure compliance with a specific Transport Policy and submit annually to the Council a written report detailing activities undertaken, compliance with the Transport Policy and the residential occupiers of the land. I shall have regard to this document in determining the appeals.
The appeals on ground (a) and the section 78 appeal
The main issues
8. I consider the main issues in determining the ground (a) and section 78 appeals to be:- • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to countryside restraint policies and impact on the rural landscape; • the implications of the development for policy objectives promoting sustainable travel patterns and modes of transport; • the effect of the development on highway safety; and • whether or not there is a justification for the development that outweighs any harm arising from the above issues, with particular reference to the promotion and advancement of permaculture and sustainable ways of living. Planning policy
9. The Development Plan for the area includes RPG10: Regional Planning Guidance for the South West, the Devon County Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 (SP), adopted in October 2004, the South Hams Local Plan 1989 to 2001 (LP), adopted in April 1996, and the South Hams Local Development Framework Core Strategy (LDF), adopted in December 2006. 10. Policy SS2 of RPG10 seeks to restrict development primarily to urban areas. Policy SS19 of the same document records that outside market towns in rural areas, development should take place primarily within or adjacent to existing settlements. The general thrust of SP Policies CO6 and ST5, LP Policy SHDC3 and LDF Policy CS1, insofar as they are relevant to these appeals, is the strict control of development in the countryside, with limited exceptions where there is a clear agricultural need, in general accordance with national advice in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. 11. LDF Policy CS9 and SP Policies CO1 and CO4 seek to protect landscape quality, the latter with specific reference to Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs). SP Policy ST1 sets out means by which sustainable development objectives should be achieved, in general accordance with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, whilst LDF Policy CS11 emphasises the need to plan for climate change. SP Policy TR5 indicates that all development should promote safe use of the most sustainable and environmentally acceptable modes of travel. The Inspector’s reasoning
The site and the appeal development
12. The Appellants’ holding amounts to some 16.8 hectares, comprising pasture, woodland and naturally regenerating scrub. Although close to the small hamlet of Allaleigh, it lies in open countryside well outside the boundaries of any settlement defined in the Development Plan, and within an AGLV. Sole vehicular access is via a gateway in Allaleigh Lane, to the east of Allaleigh, served by a network of narrow, high-banked country lanes. The entire holding is subject to the Appeal B notice. However, the Appeal A notice concerns only a single field within which most, but not all, of the on-site residential accommodation is located. Appeal C relates to the latter together with additional areas taking in the remainder of the residential accommodation, the Appellants’ timber-framed barn and the access track.
13. The land is worked and occupied by the Appellants as a permaculture project. For the purposes of these appeals, I accept the definition of ‘permaculture’ adopted by both main parties, namely: ‘the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive eco-systems which have the diversity, stability and resilience of natural eco-systems…the harmonious integration of landscape and people, providing their food, energy, shelter and other material and nonmaterial needs in a sustainable way’. 14. At the time of my visit, eight dwelling units were stationed on the holding, providing homes for ten adults and three children in the form of temporary accommodation known as ‘benders’, Mongolian-style yurts and one low-impact dwelling constructed primarily from timber. There were also various ancillary facilities used for communal and educational purposes and as workshops and stores. 15. Both main parties are of the view that none of these amounts in itself to operational development, and I have been given no reason to conclude otherwise. The only substantial building on the appeal site is the barn. I understand that this already benefits from planning permission pursuant to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, having been the subject of appropriate notification to the Council, on condition that it is restricted to agricultural or forestry use. The fallback position
16. The enforcement notices are framed such that, should they be upheld, only the residential component of the existing use of the land would be required to cease. Accordingly, pursuant to s173(11) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the educational and ancillary rural enterprise elements of the permaculture holding would gain planning permission across the whole of the Appellants’ land should Appeal B be dismissed and the requirements of the second enforcement notice adhered to. Additionally, the agricultural and forestry components of the project do not constitute development, so do not require planning permission in order to continue. 17. This creates a very significant fallback position for the Appellants as, even in the event that the appeals are dismissed, they could continue to run their existing enterprise across the entire holding with the exception of the residential element. They could also erect and utilise yurts, benders and similar temporary accommodation anywhere within the holding, provided that these were not operational development and were put to non-residential use associated with the agricultural, forestry, educational or ancillary rural enterprise components of the permaculture project. 18. The Appellants have indicated that, if unable to reside on site, they would not be able to realise properly the aims and objectives of their project, residential occupation being fundamental to permaculture and additional expenses for off- site accommodation proving a hindrance. Nevertheless, given that Landmatters own the site and have already established significant infrastructure and permacultural activity on the holding, I think it highly likely that, in the event of dismissal, either they or successors would ‘soldier on’ and reap some return from the s173(11) planning permission, albeit perhaps in a manner more akin to other, less ambitious non-residential projects elsewhere that have been cited by the Council.
19. On-site activity associated with agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises would therefore, in my opinion, be likely to continue in any event, to a significant degree, should the appeals be dismissed, as would the vehicle and pedestrian movements so generated. This situation must necessarily inform my determination of the ground (a) appeals and section 78 appeal and, accordingly, I shall focus primarily on the residential element of the project in reaching my decisions. Character and appearance
20. The rural landscape of which the appeal site forms part is typical of the Ria Coastline landscape character zone identified by Devon County Council. Comprising steeply undulating farmland and woodland and a dense network of hedgebanks and green lanes, it justifies its AGLV status and is undoubtedly worthy of protection. However, within public views, only a small car park at the appeal site entrance and a long distance sighting of the barn from the village of Ashprington, to the north, signify the Appellants’ presence. All yurts, benders and other temporary accommodation and facilities are sited in a secluded part of the Landmatters holding, and could be restricted to that location by condition. The additional means of enclosure erected by the Appellants and the hedgelaying undertaken (which has been praised by reputable experts) are similarly unobtrusive. The visual impact of the appeal development on the countryside and the landscape character of the AGLV is therefore very limited, such that I find no serious conflict with the objectives of SP Policies CO1 or CO4 or LDF Policy CS9. 21. Nevertheless, the site occupies an isolated location in open countryside where there is a clear national and local policy presumption against new residential development unless exceptional circumstances apply. The fact that the Appellants’ dwelling units are not prominently located is not in itself a good argument for departing from this, as it could be repeated too often. Activity associated with a use can also affect the character of a locality and I find it inevitable that, in such a quiet, isolated area, pedestrian or vehicular movements generated by the permaculture holding over and above levels that might generally be associated with conventional agriculture and forestry on the land will be noticed by residents of the nearby hamlet of Allaleigh, regardless of any safeguards the Appellants might put in place. 22. However, bearing in mind the fallback position described above, additional activity that might take place as a direct consequence of allowing these appeals could, in my assessment, be very limited. It would be a direct consequence of the residential component of the development and, whilst, I do not disregard the point made by some that a project on the scale favoured by the Appellants would effectively ‘double the size’ of Allaleigh, numbers of dwellings could be curtailed by condition to something less significant. Moreover, I find that any repercussions that this might have for the countryside would be greatly mitigated by the low impact design of the accommodation and the Appellants’ commitment to traditional farming methods and sustainable travel arrangements.
23. In conclusion, there is no doubt that the appeal development conflicts with established polices designed to constrain residential development in the countryside. Moreover, I find that, considered in its totality, the scheme would have a discernible impact on the character of the area by reason of additional activity. Accordingly, it fails to comply with Policies and SS19 of RPG10, SP Policies CO6 and ST5, LP Policy SHDC3 and LDF Policy CS1, and national policy in PPS7. However, having said this, I find that the degree of harm to the countryside directly attributable to activity that would not continue to take place in the event of the appeals being dismissed would, in all likelihood, be very limited. Sustainable transport and travel patterns
24. The appeal site lies some 10 to 15 minutes walk from the nearest bus stop, and visitors travelling to and from the Landmatters holding for whatever purpose are therefore likely, for the most part, to be dependent on private motor vehicles for transportation. Additionally, the residents of the permaculture holding, whilst espousing energy efficient modes of travel such as cycling and walking and seeking to maximise vehicle sharing, readily acknowledge that they need to make use of motorised transport from time to time. Indeed, the Co-Operative’s Transport Policy provides for Landmatters residents to own a maximum of five vehicles. 25. In view of the Appellants’ fallback position, I consider that many of these vehicle movements would be likely to continue whether or not the appeals are allowed. However, it is pertinent that the appeal site is remote from facilities generally regarded as essential to day-to-day residency, such as shops, schools and healthcare, and that some residents of the appeal site currently work elsewhere. Moreover, the unilateral obligation, by reason of vagaries implicit in the wording of the Transport Policy to which it relates, is more a statement of intent than an enforceable limitation on the use of motorised transport, with the exception of its restrictions on vehicle ownership. 26. I acknowledge the Co-Operative’s best intentions to rely upon sustainable means of travel which, I accept, should reduce markedly the number of vehicle trips made for domestic purposes. Nevertheless, I surmise that, regardless of this, there must be times when private motorised transport is likely to be used for purposes that arise solely from residential occupation of the appeal site. Examples could include where bulky domestic items require transportation, where small children are involved, in bad weather and outside daylight hours, particularly as steep topography and narrow lanes without footways must in any event be disincentives to walk or cycle. 27. On the other side of the equation, a residential presence at the permaculture holding reduces the likelihood of motorised transport being used for commuting by on-site workers, who would not be formally bound by the Co-Operative’s Transport Policy should the appeals be dismissed. I conclude that, on balance, the remote location means that a residential presence on the appeal site requires greater dependence on non-sustainable modes of travel than would be the case on the edge of a substantial settlement and thus runs contrary to the objectives of SP Policies ST1 and TR5 and national policy in PPS1. However, I also find that, in the context of the Appellants’ activities as a whole, which I find likely to continue to a significant degree if the appeals are unsuccessful, the harm so caused to policy objectives concerned with the promotion of sustainable travel patterns and modes of transport is limited.
Highway safety
28. The Council promotes SP Policies TR5 and TR10 as the appropriate policy framework against which to assess this issue. However, I find Policy TR5 to be concerned primarily with sustainability rather than safety. Moreover, I share the Appellants’ view that the scope of Policy TR10 is clearly limited, by reason of its main heading, to the County’s strategic road network, regardless of the manner in which the County and District Councils may generally seek to apply it in practice. 29. Nevertheless, supporting text at paragraph 5.80 of the Structure Plan advises that priorities for the non strategic network include the improvement of safety, and I find this, logically interpreted, to be a clear indicator of a general intention to guard against hazards on local roads. In any event, the objective of safety is firmly embodied in national guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) and, ultimately, is a matter of basic common sense that should underpin all planning decisions. 30. My approach to this issue must necessarily adhere to the parameters rehearsed above in discussing sustainable transport and travel patterns. The degree to which the appeal development impacts on highway safety is a direct consequence of the amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by on-site activity, much of which could continue in any event if the appeals are dismissed. Dismissal could also give rise to additional commuter traffic, as already referred to. 31. The weight I give to the Appellants’ traffic survey is tempered by the fact that, although overseen by an independent highways consultant, it was carried out in the main by members of the Landmatters Co-Operative. Having said this, the Council has provided no traffic information other than standard residential data drawn from the TRICS database which, although applied leniently to this case by the highway authority, is of limited relevance given the unconventional nature of the Appellants’ community. I shall therefore draw primarily on my own judgement, experience and car-borne journeys around the local road network in assessing this issue, whilst having regard to the specific traffic- related incidents reported in written submissions and during the course of the Inquiry. 32. It is a matter of fact that the narrow high-banked lanes which link the appeal site to the strategic road network are ill-suited to modern-day vehicular traffic and fall short of the technical standards prescribed in the government publication Manual for Streets. However, whilst many of the key principles of the latter may be applicable to lightly-trafficked lanes in rural areas, its main focus is on conventional residential streets, and this inevitably limits its relevance to the network of very narrow country roads in the vicinity of the appeal site. 33. In any event I found, when driving around narrow lanes in the wider area similar to but somewhat busier than those serving Allaleigh, that in practice drivers generally respond to this somewhat inhibiting highways environment by travelling at relatively slow and appropriate speeds, making use of frequent informal passing places and reversing carefully if confronted by another vehicle. Such practice operates effectively as a safety mechanism throughout the area and I am satisfied that, when seen in this context, perceived problems of reduced visibility, narrow carriageway widths and steep gradients of the kind cited by the Council cease to be matters of serious concern.
34. Moreover, having trialled the road network in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site at different times of day throughout the course of the Inquiry, I invariably found the level of traffic using it to be extremely low. I share the Appellants’ view that, despite their substandard nature, these lanes have considerable capacity to carry additional traffic with an acceptable level of safety. 35. Landmatters’ Transport Policy, whilst designed to minimise vehicle movements, is not, for the most part, properly enforceable. Nonetheless, I have no reason to doubt the Appellants’ genuine intention to adhere to it and am prepared to accept it as a reasonably dependable manifesto. Past instances of parking on the highway by the site entrance were adequately explained by the Appellants at the Inquiry and I accept that these are unlikely to reoccur. I also take note of the Appellants’ willingness, as indicated in their Transport Policy, to use the less populated route linking the site to the A3122, turning left from the appeal site entrance, and to encourage visitors to do the same. Indeed, a sign to this effect is clearly visible as one leaves the site. 36. Inevitably, the occasional need to reverse vehicles along the public highway for short distances will arise, as it has in the past. However, I conclude that the likely incidence of significant vehicular conflict arising directly from Landmatters’ residential activities, over and above that which would be associated with the fallback position in any event, is so small as to be inconsequential. Accordingly, I find no valid highway safety objection to the appeal development and no serious conflict with the Development Plan or relevant national guidance in PPG13. Permaculture
37. Notwithstanding the Appellants’ contention to the contrary, I find specific support in the current Development Plan and national guidance for the residential element of their project to be limited, the general thrust of established policy being to safeguard the countryside outside towns and villages from most forms of residential use. I also accept that, if considered individually, the various activities envisaged by the Appellants would not in themselves justify an on-site residential presence. Moreover, I consider that the scheme fails to comply with the terms of the functional and financial tests set out in Annex A to PPS7 insofar as they are generally interpreted in relation to proposals for conventional temporary agricultural dwellings. 38. However, Annex A makes it clear that whether residential accommodation is essential in any particular case will depend on the needs of the enterprise and, in any event, this project goes well beyond the conventional. Inherent in the concept of permaculture is the implementation of wide-ranging and interrelated sustainable initiatives on a single agricultural site in a communal way. I am thus persuaded that various activities set out in the Appellants’ land management and enterprise plans should be considered cumulatively rather than individually, so that a holistic view of the overall project can be taken. 39. I am also satisfied that the evidence before me demonstrates clearly that, in order to practice permaculture properly and successfully on the scale envisaged in this case, a substantial and continuous residential presence is essential. I do not doubt that the Appellants or their successors would be able to carry out some of the activities planned without living on the land. However, such an arrangement would not amount to permaculture in its true sense and the scope and purpose of the experiment would, in such circumstances, be significantly altered and diluted. 40. However, having said this, I find nothing in the Appellants’ evidence to justify a minimum threshold of ten dwellings at this stage in the permaculture holding’s development, let alone their ultimate goal of 15. There are eight residential units on site at the moment, which have successfully facilitated the project’s progress to date, and proposed activities have not been quantified in terms of the number of hands required to implement them. It is also clear that some of the workforce do not, and need not, live on the site. The need for a residential presence over and above that which exists at present has not therefore been demonstrated, and I shall bear this in mind in determining the appeals. 41. I turn now to consider whether the potential benefits of this particular permaculture undertaking are sufficient to outweigh the harm previously identified in relation to the character of the area and objectives of sustainable transport and travel patterns. I take the view that, if value is to be attributed to the project to such a degree, then it must be justified in terms of its experimental role in developing, practising, understanding and teaching sustainable methods of agriculture and ways of living. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the advancement of permaculture should be seen as an important planning objective and, if it should be, whether there is a reasonable prospect that the Appellants’ specific proposals could facilitate such advancement to a meaningful extent. 42. I do not accept that the absence of specific reference to permaculture in current planning guidance signifies its unimportance. This is not in itself surprising, given that it remains an uncommon and specialised practice and proposals are few and far between. For the same reason, I do not share the view that such projects should only be considered as part and parcel of the emergence of Local Development Frameworks, despite the fact that some local authorities have taken steps along that path, rather than by means of individual planning applications. 43. Permaculture is now an internationally recognised means of sustainable agriculture and the subject of much academic study in recent years. Moreover, the direction of travel of emerging national policy towards ever more sustainable approaches to development and the need to address the problem of climate change is readily apparent, most recently in the consultation document Planning and Climate Change, envisaged as an eventual supplement to PPS1. Whilst little weight can be attached to the specific policies contained in this document, its publication nevertheless signals a clear step change in the governmental approach to these issues and emphasises their increasing significance, already reflected at local level to some degree in SP Policy ST1 and LDF Policy CS11. 44. In such a context, I find there to be considerable ecological, educational and cultural benefits in further exploring permaculture. In my view, these do not derive from the underpinning ethos of communal living, which is unlikely to be embraced enthusiastically by all but a small minority, but rather from the development of and experimentation with sustainable technologies and agricultural practices which that way of life facilitates. I do not find the fact that similar projects are already established, such as that at Tinker’s Bubble in Somerset, to diminish the potential importance of an additional permaculture scheme. Experiments can build on the findings of previous trials rather than merely replicate what has gone before, and it is clear from the academic support for these appeals that permaculture is still an evolving concept.
45. The Landmatters land management and enterprise plans set out an ambitious range of proposals which in my opinion, if fully realised, could contribute substantially to the advancement of this important strand of environmental science, with the notable bi-product of refining sustainable practices applicable well outside the confines of agriculture. Of particular significance is the educational role that this undertaking aims to fulfil, with its scope to not only host school trips but also to assist more advanced research. 46. I have no reason to question the Appellants’ good faith and genuine intention to carry forward the project in the manner indicated, or to doubt their knowledge and expertise in matters of permaculture, although I accept that the communal lifestyle is as important to many of the Co-Operative’s members as the agricultural experiment. Landmatters have already achieved low levels of energy consumption, implemented wide-ranging recycling initiatives and established an ecological footprint per household far smaller than the regional average, as established by the analysis undertaken by 4th World Ecological Design, the findings of which were not seriously questioned at the Inquiry. 47. Notwithstanding the doubts and criticisms levelled by some, I am impressed by the amount of permaculture-related work undertaken at the appeal site to date, albeit that this has yet to blossom into a profit-making enterprise, and the quality of infrastructure already in place. Progress must be considered in the light of the facts that there has only been a substantial residential presence on site for little more than a year and a long period of observation before initiatives are put into practice is integral to permaculture design. In any event, I find the prospect of what might develop in the future to be far more significant to my decision than what has taken place so far. 48. In this regard, the Council and others have criticised the enterprise plan in several respects, suggesting that the project is over-reaching in terms of its financial forecasts and citing a lack of market research and independent substantiation. It is also the case that the plans have been revised significantly from last year, initial targets for 2006 having apparently been abandoned, and that some Landmatters residents currently work off-site for part of the time. I agree that such considerations highlight uncertainties which reduce to an extent the confidence with which the likely success of the project can be predicted. Further uncertainty derives from the shortcomings of the Appellants’ section 106 obligation and Transport Policy which, as previously explained, does not provide a reliable basis for effective planning enforcement. 49. However, this is not to say that the Appellants’ stated goals cannot be achieved, as it is difficult to assess with accuracy, given a paucity of precedent and experience on which to draw, the likely profit that might be derived from an enterprise of this kind and determine whether this would be sufficient to fund the ongoing project. Whilst the Council’s agricultural witness has attempted such an assessment, he has done so by applying the tests in Annex A of PPS7 in a conventional way which I consider, in the context of such an unconventional scheme, to be questionable. He also acknowledges a lack of experience of and training in permaculture. Additionally, it must be borne in mind that, in contrast to a conventional agricultural undertaking, profitability and self-sufficiency, whilst important, are not the only measures of success of a project of this kind.
50. In my view, the necessary and sufficient safeguard against these unknown factors is that, if the appeals were allowed, planning permission would only be granted for a temporary period, supplemented by the obligation and conditions to limit the scale and nature of the activity. The project could thus be trialled and monitored, with a view to carrying out a further detailed assessment of the continuing worth of the Appellants’ experiment, and drawn to a close upon expiry of the permission if ultimately found, in the light of experience, to lack sufficient credibility or value. Moreover, all accommodation could be removed from the site without trace, should this be necessary. 51. This being so, and bearing in mind the substantial fallback position available to the Appellants, I conclude that the advancement of permaculture and sustainable ways of living facilitated by this project has sufficient potential value to outweigh the limited harm to other interests of acknowledged importance identified earlier in my reasoning. Accordingly, I find justification in this case for a departure from relevant local and national policy sufficient to grant planning permission. 52. Although the Appellants seek a five year consent with a minimum of ten dwellings I consider that, in the light of the above uncertainties, only a three year trial of residential occupancy with a maximum of eight dwellings is justified. However, in view of the fallback position, only the residential element of the use should be time limited. Other matters
53. I have considered all the other matters raised, including the perceived lack of success of the permaculture project at Steward Wood. However, this contrasts markedly with the advancements made by the Tinker’s Bubble project and there is no reason to believe that the Landmatters scheme would follow the path of the former rather than the latter. The lack of a structured approach to choosing a location for the undertaking and the fact that there may be sites closer to a large settlement where it could be conducted with a greater level of sustainability do not necessarily mean that the land at Allaleigh is inherently unsuitable for the purpose or preclude the granting of planning permission. In any event, I have not been made aware that other, more suitable land is available. 54. I have also taken into account previous refusals of planning permission for residential proposals in the area referred to be local residents and the Secretary of State’s dismissal in 1995 of the first Tinker’s Bubble appeal (ref no APP/R2235/A/94/244042). However, each scheme must be dealt with primarily on its own merits, as I have done in this instance. In any event, there was no substantial fallback position in the case of that other appeal decision of the kind that applies to the current scheme, and considerations of sustainability and climate change had yet to attain the high profile they now command. Fears of precedent fall to be considered in the same way and, although there are other such projects in the region, the difficulties associated with this kind of lifestyle militate against the likelihood a host of similar proposals coming forward in the wake of these appeals.
55. I accept that a number of successful projects elsewhere concerned with the sustainable agricultural working of land are not dependent upon residential occupation of the land, as evidenced by the various concerns run as part of the South Devon Community Supported Farming group drawn to my attention by the Council. However, whilst some of these seem to share a number of the farming principles favoured by Landmatters, I have seen nothing to suggest that they duplicate the Appellants’ permaculture initiatives significantly, operate at the scale or level of ambition or occupy similarly extensive holdings. Indeed, Ms Belsey of the locally-situated Green Lanes Centre gave compelling evidence to the contrary at the Inquiry. 56. I am satisfied that the appeal scheme has no adverse implications for local infrastructure of any significance, but attach very limited weight to those other benefits, aside from the advancement of permaculture and sustainable ways of living, that the Appellants clearly perceive as arising from their communal existence. These amount to little more than individual preferences and the fulfilment of personal philosophies unlikely to be adopted to a material degree by the general populace. Nor do I give credence to the argument that the appeal development provides affordable housing in a way that might help to ease the local housing crisis or relieve pressure on conventional affordable housing resources to any meaningful extent. 57. However, neither these nor any of the other matters raised are of such importance as to outweigh the considerations that have led to my conclusions on the main issues. Accordingly, I find that the appeals on ground (a) and the section 78 appeal should succeed. Conditions
58. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council and discussed at the Inquiry, having regard to the advice in Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. In some cases I have combined conditions and edited the suggested wording to reflect that advice. The following paragraphs relate to all three appeals unless otherwise indicated. 59. The permission for residential use should be limited to a period of three years and a maximum of eight dwelling units for the reasons I have already explained. In view of the Appellants’ fallback position, it would not be appropriate to apply a time limitation to the other elements of the appeal development. To enable the Council to monitor the achievements of the permaculture project, a condition is required to supplement and clarify the somewhat ambiguous undertaking in the section 106 obligation to submit an annual written report detailing ‘activities undertaken’. Such a condition should include a requirement to update the Co-Operative’s land management and enterprise plans on a regular basis. 60. In the case of Appeal B, the units should be restricted to a secluded area little larger than that they currently occupy, in the interests of visual amenity. Permissions pursuant to Appeals A and C need not be subject to such a restriction as they would not apply beyond this area in any event. I find the fact that the units cannot themselves amount to operational development to effectively limit their form and structure, such that a maximum footprint of 50 square metres should prove sufficient to ensure their continued unobtrusiveness without the need for a height restriction.
61. Given that planning permission is granted specifically to facilitate the advancement of experimentation in permaculture and sustainable living, occupation of the residential units should be limited to members of the Landmatters Co-Operative, their partners and children. Conditions governing drainage, sewage and waste storage and disposal and the storage of hazardous substances are necessary in order to protect the water environment. 62. The number of visits to the land for the purpose of education or ancillary rural enterprises would be unfettered if the appeals were dismissed. However, as a residential presence on site facilitates a greater number of such visits, I consider that some limitation on the number of such visits is justified. To this end, I find the Appellants’ suggestion that visits comprising groups of more than 12 people should take place on no more than 56 days per calendar year to be a reasonable compromise although, to ensure that compliance with such a condition remains within the Appellants’ control, it should only govern prearranged visits. 63. Local traffic conditions are such that a requirement to improve visibility at the site entrance, which I consider would impact adversely on the appearance of the rural lane, cannot be justified on grounds of highway safety. Nor do I find any planning justification for exerting control by condition over water supply arrangements at the site. Conclusions
64. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that, subject to correcting the site address stated in the two enforcement notices, Appeals A and B should succeed on ground (a) and planning permission should be granted pursuant to the deemed planning application in each case subject to conditions, including a condition limiting residential use of the land to a period of three years. The appeals on grounds (f) and (g) do not therefore need to be considered. I further conclude that Appeal C should succeed and that planning permission should be granted pursuant to it on the same basis. Formal Decisions Appeal A: APP/K1128/C/06/2032148
65. I direct that the enforcement notice issued on 8 November 2006 be corrected by the replacement in section 2 of the words ‘Allaleigh, Blackawton’ with the words ‘Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy’. 66. Subject to this correction, I allow the appeal and direct that the enforcement notice be quashed. I grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the material change of use of land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL, as shown on the plan attached to the notice, from agriculture to a “permaculture” holding comprising a mixed use integrating agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises and residential use, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to these decisions with the exception of condition 2)(B).
Appeal B: APP/K1128/C/07/2039820
67. I direct that the enforcement notice issued on 23 February 2007 be corrected by the replacement in section 2 of the words ‘Allaleigh, Blackawton’ with the words ‘Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy’. 68. Subject to this correction, I allow the appeal and direct that the enforcement notice be quashed. I grant planning permission on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the material change of use of land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL, as shown on the plan attached to the notice, from agriculture to a “permaculture” holding comprising a mixed use integrating agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises and residential use, subject to conditions set out in Appendix A to these decisions with the exception of condition 2)(A). Appeal C: APP/K1128/A/06/2018778
69. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the material change of use of land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL from agriculture to a “permaculture” holding comprising a mixed use integrating agriculture, forestry, education and ancillary rural enterprises and residential use, in accordance with the terms of the application, ref no 13/0217/06/CU dated 31 January 2006, and the plans submitted with it, subject to conditions set out in Appendix A to these decisions with the exception of condition 2)(B). Alan Woolnough
INSPECTOR
APPENDIX A
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) The residential use hereby permitted shall be discontinued, all residential accommodation and facilities ancillary thereto removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before the expiry of a period of three years commencing with the date of this decision.
2) (A) No more than eight residential units shall be stationed on the land at any one time. No residential unit shall exceed 50 square metres in footprint as measured externally or be of such form or structure that it constitutes operational development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2) (B)No more than eight residential units shall be stationed on the land at any one time. No residential unit shall be positioned outside the area hatched in black on the plan attached to this decision, exceed 50 square metres in footprint as measured externally or be of such form or structure that it constitutes operational development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3) Occupation of the residential units on the land shall be limited to members of the Landmatters Co-Operative, their partners and dependent children.
4) Residential use of the land shall cease and all residential units and facilities ancillary thereto shall be removed from the land within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) to (iii) below:
(i) Within three months of the date of this decision, details of arrangements for the storage of any hazardous substances (including diesel) and for the storage and disposal of sewage and other waste, to include timetables for their implementation, shall have been submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority. (ii) Within 12 months of the date of this decision, the details submitted in pursuance of (i) above shall have been approved by the local planning authority or, if the local planning authority refuses to approve the details or fails to give a decision within eight weeks of their submission, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. (iii) If an appeal is made in pursuance of (ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted details shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. 5) Arrangements for storage of any hazardous substances and for the storage and disposal of sewage and other waste approved pursuant to condition 4) shall be implemented in the approved manner in accordance with the approved timetables.
6) The site shall at all times be drained on a system that keeps all clean roof and surface water separate from foul drainage. All foul drainage, including foul surface water run-off, shall be disposed of in such a way as
to prevent any discharge to any well, spring or watercourse, including dry ditches with connection to a watercourse. 7) Pre-arranged visits to the site by groups of more than 12 people for purposes associated with education or ancillary rural enterprises shall take place on no more than 56 days per calendar year. 8) In each of the first three years of this permission, a written report detailing the permaculture holding’s achievements to date, to include details of compliance with the most recent versions of the Landmatters Co-Operative land management plan and enterprise plan, together with updates of those plans addressing the next three year period, shall be submitted to the local planning authority on or before 1 April.
APPENDIX B APPEARANCES, DOCUMENTS AND PLANS
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
David Stephens Solicitor, Battens Solicitors, Mansion House, Princes Street, Yeovil, Somerset BA20 1EP He called Mr S Fairlie Director, Chapter 7, The Potato Store, Flaxdrayton Farm, Drayton, South Petherton, Somerset TA13 5LR Mr C D Jones Chartered Engineer, 5 Lodge Close, Yatton, C.Eng MICE FIHT Bristol BS49 4DX Mr A Goldring Coordinator, Permaculture Association (Britain), 29 Sholebroke Mount, Leeds LS7 3NG Ms R Star BA(Hons) Landmatters Co-Operative Ltd, Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Peter Wadsley Of Counsel, instructed by the Solicitor to South Hams District Council He called
Mr R Crombie Planning Enforcement Officer, South Hams District Council
Mr G Bryant Area Highways Engineer, Devon County Council
Mr D G Roberts Chartered Surveyor, Moor Farm, Willey Lane, BSc MRICS Sticklepath, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2NG
Mr M J Muston Director, Muston Planning, 75 Dovers Park, BA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI Bathford, Bath BA1 7UD
Mr A Whish Landscape Officer, South Hams District Council BA(Hons) DipLA
FOR RESIDENTS OF ALLALEIGH: Mr A Goddard Solicitor, The Dog Watches, Bantham, Kingsbridge, Devon TQ7 3AN He called Mrs S Jaine Allaleigh House, Allaleigh, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL, appearing on behalf of 17 named residents of Allaleigh
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr R Hopkins 12 Droridge, Dartington, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6JQ
Mr C Cadle Glebe Orchard, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7ES, appearing on behalf of the Parish Councils of Cornworthy, Ashprington, Blackawton, Halwell & Morleigh and Dittisham
Mr T S McCartney Embercombe, Higher Ashton, Exeter, Devon EX6 7QT, also appearing on behalf of Dr S Harding, Mr J Liddle, Ms P Sykes, Mr J Sherrill and Ms V Harvey
Mr M Elsmere Westerly, Washbourne, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7UF
Ms V Belsey 10 North Street, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5NZ
Ms K Benson 5 Meadow Brook, Totnes, Devon TQ9 5SJ
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
1 Signed Statement of Common Ground
2 Supplementary proof of evidence by Derek Roberts, submitted by the Council
3 Supplementary proof of evidence by Colin Jones, submitted by the Appellants
4 Revised Appendix 1 to Mrs Jaine’s proof, submitted by Mrs Jaine
5 Joint Statement by Cornworthy, Ashprington, Blackawton, Halwell & Morleigh and Dittisham Parish Councils, submitted by Mr Cadle
6 Letters from UpStart, University of Plymouth, Neale Consulting Engineers Ltd, Pathways – Spirit In Business Ltd and Jeremy Thres, submitted by the Appellants
7 Letter dated 17 May 2006 from the Devon Wildlife Trust, submitted by the Appellants 8 Planning applications forms, site plans and decision notices for decisions refs 9/13/1096/78/1 and 9/13/0630/79/1, submitted by the Council 9 Decision notice ref 04/01235/COU, dated 23 June 2005 and relating to Tinker’s Bubble, Little Norton, submitted by the Appellants 10 Letter dated 13 July 2007 from Anthony Steen MP, submitted by Mrs Jaine
11 Letters and statements from Valerie Belsey, Mrs Cadle, Fiona Carpenter, Sapphire de la Terre, Timothy Hall, Sylvia Harrop, Vera Harvey, Robin Horsley, Caroline Hunt, Pat Sykes, Dr Christian Taylor, Dr C J Trier, Elizabeth Turner and John Watson, submitted by interested persons
12 Paragraphs 5.71 to 5.80 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 to 2016, submitted by the Council
13 Extract from Consultation on Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplementary to Planning Policy Statement 1 (DCLG), submitted by the Appellants
14 Extract from Transport In The Urban Environment (IHT), submitted by the Appellants
15 Extract from Guidance on Transport Assessment (DCLG/DfT), submitted by the Appellants
16 Signed planning obligation pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, dated 19 July 2007, submitted by the Appellants
17 Suggested visibility splay condition, submitted by the Appellants
18 Notes of application for an award of costs, submitted by the Appellants
PLANS
A Plan attached to the Appeal A enforcement notice
B Plan attached to the Appeal B enforcement notice
C Planning application site location plan
D Map 13 of the Devon Structure Plan 2001 to 2016, submitted by the Appellants
E Location plan for Crowthers Hill, Dartmouth, submitted by the Appellants
19
Plan
This is the plan referred to in my decision on Appeal B dated 23rd. August 2007
Alan Woolnough
The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN .. 0117 372 6372 email:
.gov.uk Alan Woolnough BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI
Scale not stated
Land at Allaleigh Lane, Allaleigh, Cornworthy, Totnes, Devon TQ9 7DL
