[harmony]

Someone in our village has just been served notice to take out a track they put in across their field.

I thought even if you have the amount of land that you don't need full planning permission for an agricultural track that you still have to demonstrate you are an agricultural business.

I would suggest "agricultural purpose" only (rather than a trading agri' "business").

Agricultural, purpose or business. The key word is the first one is it not?
In this case the purpose seems to be access for looking after horses and nothing to do with agriculture but maybe there is other animals there too?


The sticking point is the extra surveys not why the OP needs the track.

[Forestlens]

On the face of it the requirement for the ecological surveys in this case seems OTT. That’s why I’d talk to the planners. Do they really understand what you’re wanting? On the other hand there may be issues that you’ve overlooked that need explaining.

[arobwk]

Ref your Reply#16 [member=24672]harmony[/member]:
The simple grazing of horses on agricultural land is not a change of use so it remains agricultural land unless, as I understand it, one starts to ride them on the land or provide supplementary feed. 
My guess is that every pony-paddock with a set of jumps and providing extra feed would technically require PP for change of use, BUT that would be a nonsense wouldn't it and the rules are really aimed at preventing riding school/livery developments w/o PP I would say (and are simply ignored by average horsey folk and their neighbours).   

[arobwk]

It's road planings. I have the contractor all lined up and this is what he's said he is using. I struggled to get someone. I got messed about by 4 or 5 different companies/tradesmen and this is the only one to come out and actually give me a quote. I have seen their work so I know they aren't cowboys and do the job properly.
I don't have time or equipment to build it up unfortunately. It will all have to go in at once by the contractor.

Do road planings end up looking like aggregate and remain quite loose over time where not compressed by traffic ? (I really don't know)  I ask because any medium that enables plants/weeds to grow through, where they are not being repeatedly squashed by car tyres, and provides good overall drainage will hardly affect anything.   

[harmony]

On the face of it the requirement for the ecological surveys in this case seems OTT. That’s why I’d talk to the planners. Do they really understand what you’re wanting? On the other hand there may be issues that you’ve overlooked that need explaining.

I thought planners had to consider the ecological impact of any development and that this was going to be more important going forward than before. 


The OP has mentioned going up a steep slope so I would think water run off might be something to consider. I agree about talking to the planners before undertaking something which might then need to be removed.

[harmony]

Ref your Reply#16 [member=24672]harmony[/member]:
The simple grazing of horses on agricultural land is not a change of use so it remains agricultural land unless, as I understand it, one starts to ride them on the land or provide supplementary feed. 
My guess is that every pony-paddock with a set of jumps and providing extra feed would technically require PP for change of use, BUT that would be a nonsense wouldn't it and the rules are really aimed at preventing riding school/livery developments w/o PP I would say (and are simply ignored by average horsey folk and their neighbours).

I don't know exactly what the OP is using his land and barn for but it reads that they need daily access by vehicle to the barn to look after the horses. That doesn't suggest to me that the horses are just grazing.


I think planners are quite thorough in their considerations and if you are going to use "agricultural" as the need for something I am suggesting it wont be taken a face value but on evidence. I'm basing that on several local applications for farm buildings where it quite clear the planner has done their homework.


Road planings are a waste product. Putting in a road has the potential for run off. Maybe that's why an ecological assessment is necessary?


I have no problem with the reasons for the road, I am merely pointing out planners do get wind of unofficial developments and enforcement can happen.

[Bywaters]

and of course, horses aren't livestock and therefore (I don't think) agricultural

[arobwk]

and of course, horses aren't livestock and therefore (I don't think) agricultural

Do catch up Bywaters ! 

[landroverroy]

and of course, horses aren't livestock and therefore (I don't think) agricultural

In planning terms any grazing animal counts as agriculture - providing, as Arobwk has mentioned, there is nothing imported to the grazing land in the way of extra food, or the animal is not used for some form of commerce eg riding school.

[caz]

The horses just graze the land

[arobwk]

DO CHECK with any supplier of planings whether they have an Environmental Permit for Waste Recovery involving the re-use of road planings.  Otherwise, the free annual Waste Exemption you could apply for from the Environment Agency to use stuff like road planings at a specific location to create/reinforce a trackway is the U1 Exemption.
Folk can be fined for not being registered for re-use/recovery of Waste if they are reported to the EA. 
(Using planings for trackways is Waste Recovery as opposed to Waste Disposal - you obviously have a legitimate need so your use would be Waste Recovery.)

As far as I know, the EA do not check with the LA Planners whether PP is required for any development such as yours before issuing the exemption.  (All done simply on-line.)  Just to note that all Permits or Exemptions are available for public scrutiny by searching an EA register on-line. Also, sometimes a local EA officer will come check out the site: she did after I'd received my Exemptions certification - I know because I received a telephone call with a query.

In absence of any other forum advice re road planings, I checked ont' web:  the only warning was about using planings from deeper resurfacing operations which could contain tar-based rather than just bitumen-based planings !!  (How would a customer be able to tell ?  Best to use a reputable company, but still not an absolute guarantee.  One can ask the question though !)