An ancient woodland enforcement appeal concerning three agricultural buildings has failed in Staffordshire Moorlands. Inspector D Wilson upheld a notice requiring their removal and restoration of the land at Westwood Hall Farm, Leek, in a decision issued on 10th November 2026.
The structures were erected within an area of ancient woodland, with a stone-chip hardstanding and associated ground works. The landowner appealed under ground (a), asking for retrospective planning permission. The Inspector accepted that the buildings had a modest and familiar agricultural appearance, but concluded that their impact on irreplaceable woodland could not be justified.
If you’re planning a rural building, I’d check the habitat constraints before treating its appearance as the main hurdle. This ancient woodland enforcement decision shows why: the Inspector accepted the buildings’ modest appearance, but agricultural need and future woodland management did not outweigh damage to irreplaceable habitat. The detailed restoration requirements therefore remained in place.
Why the ancient woodland enforcement appeal failed
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council served its notice on 21st October 2025 concerning land at Westwood Hall Farm, Westwood Park Drive, Leek. The alleged breach was the construction without planning permission of three steel-framed buildings with concrete boards and metal cladding, open gated fronts and stone hardstanding. The notice required the buildings and their supporting works to be removed.
The appellant, Mr M Shuker, used ground (a) of section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That ground allows an Inspector to consider granting planning permission for an unauthorised development. It differs from a claim that the buildings were already lawful or covered by an agricultural permitted development right. No such separate lawfulness finding formed part of the decision.
Inspector Wilson identified two main questions: the effect on ancient woodland and the effect on the surrounding landscape. The first was decisive. The appeal site lay within ancient woodland, and tree felling or other works had been carried out to accommodate the structures. The appellant suggested that some of those works pre-dated the wood’s designation as ancient woodland, but the appellant’s own arboricultural evidence acknowledged an impact.
Planning Geek’s guide to ancient woodland and veteran trees explains why such habitat receives particularly strong protection. The critical issue here was not whether a woodland improvement project might have merit. It was whether the buildings and works causing deterioration met the national policy threshold.
National policy protection for irreplaceable habitats
The decision applied policy N6 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, which treats ancient woodland as irreplaceable habitat. Development causing its loss or deterioration should be refused unless wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exist. The policy gives infrastructure schemes delivering particularly compelling public benefits as examples of the sort of exception that might qualify.
The appellant submitted an arboricultural impact assessment dated November 2025. It described the impact as fairly low and concentrated around the buildings and nearby trees. Nevertheless, as the Inspector recorded, the assessment acknowledged that there is nonetheless harm to the ancient woodland
. An impact does not cease to matter simply because it affects a limited part of an irreplaceable habitat.
The appellant also relied on the need for additional forage storage to support the farming business. The Inspector did not challenge that practical need, but noted that any benefits were likely to be principally private. No overriding public benefit had been demonstrated to justify the deterioration of ancient woodland.
The ancient woodland enforcement ruling therefore did not turn on a finding that farming was unimportant. It turned on the demanding national exception test, which requires substantially more than evidence that a building would be useful to an individual agricultural enterprise.
Woodland management could not undo the policy conflict
A woodland management plan was put forward for the appeal. The Inspector accepted that future management could be beneficial, since the woodland was not then being actively managed. There might also be some ecological gains from additional planting and restoration work.
But the relevant Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that proposed compensation cannot itself establish the wholly exceptional reasons needed to justify harm to irreplaceable habitat. Put simply, offering to improve woodland elsewhere or manage what remains is not the same as avoiding deterioration in the first place.
The Inspector took account of arguments that some clearance had preceded the land’s designation as ancient woodland, and of earlier compaction or damage. The Inspector also noted that the arboricultural report did not record decline in retained trees. None of those points displaced its acknowledgement that the current works caused harm or answered the N6 test.
This is a particularly useful aspect of the ancient woodland enforcement appeal for landowners. A planting or management plan may still form part of responsible site care, but it should not be relied upon as an automatic trade-off for an unjustified incursion into ancient woodland. The policy test must be addressed before irreversible works take place.
Agricultural appearance was not the problem
On landscape character, the Inspector reached the opposite conclusion. The buildings stood close together, reached through a track from the existing farmhouse and agricultural yard, and were surrounded by woodland and open fields. Their simple construction and modest appearance were recognisable as agricultural structures.
There were some views from public paths, but they were distant or glimpsed through the landscape. The Inspector considered that the buildings would not look unusual in the context of a wider working farm. Further planting could improve the visual position over time. The Inspector therefore found no unacceptable harm to character and appearance and no conflict with the local design policies.
That favourable landscape conclusion could not overcome the habitat harm. The decision treated visual impact and ecological deterioration as separate issues, and the distinction matters in practice: a building that looks unobtrusive behind trees can still have required removing or damaging trees, raising levels, compacting roots or introducing hardstanding into habitat that should be protected.
The ancient woodland enforcement case also considered agricultural policy. Policy S5 of the 2026 Framework can support development outside settlements, including for agriculture, and policy E4 recognises farming businesses. But the benefits identified here did not outweigh the specific adverse consequences under policy N6.
Removal, replacement trees and restoring the woodland
The enforcement notice required more than simply dismantling the three buildings. It also required removal of hardstanding, hardcore bases, foundations, supporting pads and remaining construction material. The land had to be regraded to its former levels, with care taken around surviving trees and exposed root flares.
The restoration schedule required six replacement trees, three native oaks and three beeches, to be planted during the winter season and maintained for five years, with replacements for losses. It also specified reseeding with a woodland-suitable grass mix and limiting machinery to already disturbed areas, rather than taking vehicles through undisturbed woodland.
The notice allowed twelve months for compliance. Inspector Wilson dismissed the ground (a) appeal and upheld the notice, refusing the planning permission deemed to have been requested under section 177(5). The detailed remedial works therefore remained operative as specified in the decision.
Planning Geek’s enforcement appeal grounds guide sets out the different statutory routes. Here the appeal proceeded on ground (a) alone, so no other ground was argued to show that the development was lawful or that the notice was invalid. The result was a substantive planning refusal followed by enforcement.
What the decision means for rural landowners
The lesson from this ancient woodland enforcement appeal is to establish protected habitat constraints before treating agricultural need as the decisive consideration. A case for storage, forage or livestock buildings may be credible in general planning terms while still failing because the particular position would harm ancient woodland.
If you’re considering a similar building, I’d use independent tree and habitat evidence to test its position before construction starts. Trying to explain the damage afterwards is a much harder task. For councils, the case shows the value of separating visual amenity from the special protection given to irreplaceable habitat, and of specifying practical restoration steps where unauthorised works have occurred.
The decision is APP/B3438/C/25/3376078, issued on 10th November 2026 by Inspector D Wilson. The Planning Inspectorate case record identifies the appeal. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. Planning Geek’s agriculture and equestrian planning guidance provides broader context for planning rural buildings.
Quoted decision text is Planning Inspectorate material, Crown copyright, reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
0 Comments