A WEST Devon farmer who was last year fined for fertilising fields at Vixen Tor has had her convictions for environmental offences overturned by the High Court in London. The court ruled the four convictions against Mrs Alford be quashed, as well as her £1,000 fine and an order she contribute £5,000 costs to Defra. Lord Brook also ordered Defra should pay Mrs Alford?s legal costs. Lord Justice Brook and Mr Justice David Steel concluded that when Mary Alford spread calcified seaweed and manure on her land between March 31 and April 13 2003, it could not be construed as intervention for ?intensive agricultural purposes? ? the phrase which judges said was at the heart of the case. The court heard Mrs Alford had not applied for an environmental impact assessment before applying the fertiliser ? nor had she received permission from the secretary of state for applyng the material. These steps need to be taken if a project involves use of the land for ?intensive agricultural purposes?, which the Plymouth judge concluded was the use in this case. Peter Blair, for Defra, said the project qualified for an environmental impact assessment. He told the court that semi-natural areas had been decimated by agricultural practices in recent years which had destroyed important habitats for flora and fauna. But William Batstone, for Mrs Alford, said ?intensive agricultural purposes? implied an increase in agricultural activity to the productive capacity of the land ? plus an ?increase to a particular level that can be described as intensive, by reference to certain thresholds or criteria?. Lord Brook said: ?When we first read these papers we were surprised to see a project which involved no more than the re-invigoration of farmland which had been badly neglected for many years, could properly be categorised as one which used the land for intensive agricultural purposes.? He also found Mrs Alford?s project did not amount to ?intervention in the natural surroundings and landscape involving the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes?, and that ?bringing land back to a normal level of agricultural productivity? was outside the scope of Defra?s directive. Mrs Alford said the High Court decision was ?a huge relief?. ?Obviously we are delighted ? basically Defra put us through hell for nearly two years. We were the first ones to be taken to court in this country under the new European regulations and as with all regulations, this country seems to go way above any other European country. ?It?s great for agriculture that we have won the day ? and it?s definitely a milestone for farmers,? she said. But the High Court decision has angered the Ramblers? Association, which has been campaigning for Vixen Tor to be made open for access under the new Countryside Rights of Way Act. Kate Conto, head of access for the RA, said: ?We urge Defra to appeal against this nonsensical decision. It?s vitally important that landscapes like this are protected and we very much hope that in due course, there will be public access to this very special place.? And the Open Spaces Society said the High Court judgement was ?deeply worrying?. It called on Defra to appeal, or ?review and strengthen its regulations?, to make sure they did the job they were intended to do.