In our objection we pointed out the errors that occurred in the determination of application 3808/21/AGR, and that had the case officer realised that the applicant was incorrect in asserting there was already an existing track to the intended site of their proposed agricultural storage building, the decision that no prior approval was necessary would not have been so readily forthcoming.

In support, we provided various photographs and other evidence.

We also pointed out that this application, to quote the application form submitted by the applicants, was “a part- retrospective application to regularise and retain an agricultural access track”. That in itself was incorrect. No record of any track existed, and none had been provided by the applicants. Consequently it was impossible to regularise something that previously never was.

We were also concerned that the applicant and/or their agent had failed to correct many of the incorrect statements that had accompanied their previous application.

Our objection concluded with the words:

If the LPA decides to approve this application they will be both rewarding the applicants and/or their agent for their failure to provide accurate information and setting a precedent that others may attempt to exploit.

Instead, if the integrity of the planning system is to be protected, this application should be refused and the applicants required to remove the track already constructed, make good the damage they have caused to a protected landscape, and resubmit an application to either construct both a building and a track, or else to construct a building in a more sustainable and less damaging location.

The application was withdrawn.