A Modbury track appeal has been dismissed after a Planning Inspector found that extensive earthworks and an agricultural access route would harm the South Devon National Landscape. The ruling concerns Kennels Meadow beside Cottlass Lane, where land had already been regraded and a route for a track formed.
Inspector B Plenty issued the decision on 6 November 2026 following a site visit on 13 October. South Hams District Council had refused planning permission for a hardcore access track, a levelled area for poultry farming and smaller areas for animal feeders and drinkers. The appeal concerned both works carried out and elements still proposed.
The decision matters beyond one holding because it examines what evidence is needed to justify substantial engineering works for a developing agricultural business. Protected trees, the character of a valued rural valley, the strength of the agricultural case and confidential financial documents all played a part.
Why the Modbury track appeal was dismissed
The Modbury track appeal concerned Kennels Meadow, comprising three parcels of land along a valley beside Aylestone Brook. The nearby Cottlass Lane bridleway runs above much of the site, giving clear views of the land. Before the engineering works, the Inspector considered the gently sloping fields to be a positive part of the valley’s rural character.
The works involved cutting and levelling land to create a flatter platform, steep embankments and the route of a new access track. The Inspector distinguished this engineered layout from the more natural contours and compacted-earth paths typical of the surrounding countryside. The change was conspicuous from the bridleway rather than being absorbed into the topography.
Although screening and new planting had been undertaken, these could conceal only a limited part of the route. The Inspector found that the scheme would erode the landscape character over the long term. The proposed hardcore surfacing would increase the contrast between the track and the rural setting, with moderate adverse visual effects identified.
Protected tree roots were another obstacle
The Modbury track appeal also involved trees subject to a recently made Tree Preservation Order. Excavations and land reprofiling had taken place close to their root systems. The appellant argued that remaining roots were largely within the hedge bank and that mitigation, including soil replacement and monitoring, could protect the trees.
However, the Council’s tree officer identified damage to roots, including severed structural roots, and the evidence referred to the loss of fine feeder roots from one oak. The Inspector was concerned that further lowering of ground levels and installing hardcore could cause additional damage. A tree appearing healthy eighteen months after works was not enough to establish its long-term safety.
Inspector Plenty said it has not been clearly demonstrated that some trees would not fail
. The potential loss of trees added to the harm to the landscape. Replacement planting did not necessarily compensate for damage to mature protected trees, particularly where the proposed works could affect remaining roots.
Agricultural need was not sufficiently evidenced
The appellant proposed several rural activities, including fruit growing, herbs, lavender, poultry, sheep and goats. The claimed benefits of the track included moving livestock and machinery and delivering feed. A levelled area was said to assist poultry farming and reduce the possibility of waste reaching the brook.
But the Inspector was not persuaded that the original slopes prevented access by agricultural machinery or livestock. The site was relatively modest and constrained, and there was no convincing demonstration that the same operational needs could not be met with less intrusive work. The Modbury track appeal therefore failed to establish why this scale of engineering was essential.
Proposed water-quality benefits were also questioned. The evidence did not establish that animal waste would have entered the brook from the previous landform or why alternatives, such as a catchment system or bund, would not work. The Inspector described the scale and materials of the track as disproportionate for its intended use
, given the fields it would serve.
The decision is a useful contrast with the wider permitted development framework for agricultural and forestry operations. A proposal described as supporting agriculture is not automatically exempt from planning control. Whether a specific right applies, and whether its conditions have been met, must be checked against the actual works and their timing.
Confidential business documents carried no weight
An unusually important evidential point was the appellant’s assertion that a detailed business plan, marketing strategy and financial projections could be provided to the Planning Inspectorate on request but could not be disclosed publicly for commercial reasons. Those documents had not been shared with the Council or interested parties.
The Inspector explained that appeal evidence must ordinarily be available to the parties, with justified redactions available for genuinely sensitive material. Because the documents were not provided for scrutiny, they could not be taken into account. The Modbury track appeal thus turned partly on a failure to substantiate the commercial and operational case, not merely a disagreement about appearance.
This is an important practical point for anyone relying on a business case in a planning appeal. Commercial confidentiality does not remove the need for evidence that the decision-maker and other parties can properly examine. Sensitive figures may require a carefully justified approach, rather than withholding the underlying case altogether.
National Landscape duty and retrospective works
The site is within the South Devon National Landscape. The Inspector applied the strengthened statutory duty under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as amended, to seek to further conservation and enhancement of natural beauty. Harm to landscape character, views and protected trees meant that the scheme would not meet that purpose.
The Inspector also considered the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Its policies supported suitable rural economic activity, but that support did not outweigh the identified landscape and environmental harm where the agricultural need was not proven. Local and neighbourhood plan policies protecting landscape character and requiring essential countryside development also counted against the scheme.
In the Modbury track appeal, the appellant suggested that the access track was permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class E of the General Permitted Development Order. The Inspector rejected the argument in the circumstances, noting that the relevant condition required prior approval before development began. It could not retrospectively authorise the works already undertaken.
The appeal was for planning permission, not a certificate of lawfulness. The decision does not establish that all farm tracks require full planning permission. It shows instead why the specific permitted development route, its limitations and any pre-commencement procedure need to be established before machinery starts work.
What the Modbury track appeal means for rural projects
Anyone planning major tracks, platforms or land levelling should first map the original contours and identify the actual operational need. The type of machinery, movements, access alternatives, drainage evidence and the reason for choosing a particular route need to be demonstrated at a level proportionate to the works.
Tree surveys and root protection plans are just as important where excavation approaches mature trees. Screening a new earthwork does not necessarily repair harm caused by changing the underlying landform. Planning Geek’s guide to landscape character assessments explains why development must be judged in relation to its wider setting, not simply the applicant’s intended use.
The Inspector dismissed appeal APP/K1128/W/25/3366229, involving application 1587/24/FUL. The official appeal case record identifies the proceedings, and the appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The practical lesson is that a plausible farming ambition does not replace precise evidence of need, impacts and compliance with the applicable planning process.
0 Comments