This is the fourth attempt to obtain consent, the first three of which were submitted as Prior Notification applications, even though construction of the tracks had already begun. But it was not until the third application that officers finally accepted this was the case and informed the applicants that a full planning application would be required.

This has now been submitted. And, as with the original three applications and as the Society has made clear in its submission, the information that has been provided by the applicants is less than accurate in every respect.

The application site also falls within the South Hams SAC Greater Horseshoe Bat Sustenance Zone and the development will result in the loss of more than 2.7ha of grassland. It is therefore open to question whether a loss of this magnitude is ecologically significant. A Habitat Regulations Assessment could provide the answer, and should be undertaken before the application is determined.

It is also questionable whether all the lengths of track are actually necessary.

The Society's objections to the three original applications can be found here, here and here.

We concluded our latest objection by saying that were officers to now approve this application the applicants and their agent will not only be obtaining considerably more than they originally claimed was required, but beyond having to submit a multiplicity of applications, they will have suffered no obvious penalty for being other than entirely accurate in the information they have previously and continue to provide.

Unfortunately, we added, even though this is unacceptable and does nothing to maintain confidence in the integrity of the planning system, it is unlikely to offer grounds for refusal.

In her report the case officer acknowledged our concerns, noting:

... that some of the objection received states that a greater extent of track is now proposed than was included in the previous prior approval applications. This may be the case, however as an application for full planning permission, the applicant is entitled to apply for whatever area of track they wish, and are not limited by the size restrictions that apply to permitted development. Any difference in the size of track between the current application and previous proposals is therefore irrelevant, as this application will be assessed on its own merits.

The application was granted conditional approval.