Ww Alpacas Decision

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 6 November 2013

Site visit made on 6 November 2013

by Sukie Tamplin Dip TP Pg Dip Arch Cons IHBC MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 22 November 2013

Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/A/13/2199921

West Wight Alpacas, Main Road, Wellow, Isle of Wight, PO41 0SZ

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by West Wight Alpacas against the decision of the Isle of Wight Council.

The application Ref P/01784/12-TCP/30601/J, dated 21 November 2012, was refused by notice dated 21 February 2013.

The development proposed is temporary consent (3 years) for agricultural workers caravan.

Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Procedural matters

2. The appellants holding at Wellow originally had a site area of 7 acres. But, since the application was refused, about 20 acres more have been purchased and most of this land would be used in connection with the alpaca enterprise. It is only appropriate to take these changed circumstances into account if no party would be disadvantaged. In Wheatcroft (Bernard) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] JPL 37, it was held that the main criterion is whether the development is so changed by such amendments that to grant permission would be to deprive those who should have been consulted of the opportunity of consultation.

3. The additional land is a matter of fact, and both the Council and other interested parties are aware of its extent and location. Moreover there was an opportunity to make representations both in written form and at the Hearing. Thus I consider that the additional land can be taken into account without prejudice to interested parties and I have done so in this decision.

Main issue

4. Whether or not the needs of the alpaca enterprise outweigh the aims of policies seeking to limit development to defined settlements.

Background

5. In 2011, the appellants set up West Wight Alpacas and bought in animals to the 7 acre site that had been purchased in the hamlet of Wellow. Further animals were kept on two areas of rented land at Norton (6 acres) and

Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

Cranmore (21 acres)1. These additional fields were also used for hay cropping. At the time of the purchase there was a barn on the appeal site but no other buildings.

6. The appellants rented a house, for a few months, in the hamlet of Thorley which lies about 1km to the west, before moving onto the site later in 2011. By 2013 a new barn had been erected2 and alterations and extensions made to the existing barn to form a store and workshop3. This latter building is now used as a shop and caf and was constructed and converted with the aid of grants and loans4. Two caravans have also been moved onto the land. The first of these has a lawful development certificate for use as a site office and staff rest room5. The second is occupied by the appellants and their children and is the caravan subject of this appeal. Alterations to the access were permitted in January 20126 and a large parking area has been constructed.

7. During the two years since 2011 the herd has grown to 42, and the appellants are specialising in the Suri breed, primarily raised for blood stock. In addition, the appellants run the on-site shop and caf and are developing a linked tourism business of alpaca walks and treks.

8. The land is subdivided by fencing into a series of paddocks, which accommodate groups of alpacas. The paddock closest to the caravan contains the breeding females and their crias (young alpacas) while other animals which are considered to be less vulnerable are kept in the remaining paddocks. These currently include the animals used for trekking.

Reasons

Development plan context

9. The aim of Policy SP1 of The Isle of Wight Council Core Strategy March 2012 (CS) is to concentrate development within or immediately adjacent to defined settlement boundaries of Key Regeneration Areas, Smaller Regeneration Areas and Rural Service Centres. Unless a specific local need is identified, development proposals outside of, or not immediately adjacent to, defined settlements will not be supported and it is common ground that Wellow is not a defined settlement. The supporting text7 says that local needs includes local requirements for housing, a demonstrable contribution to maintaining local facilities such as schools, shops and community facilities, and development that maintains or enhances the viability of local communities.

10. Though the appellants say that they have a local housing need this is in respect of the particular agricultural enterprise rather than the needs of the locality. Furthermore, it was confirmed by the Parish Council that consultations were well underway into the possible provision of up to 2 specified rural housing

1 By the time of the hearing the area of rented land had changed and comprised 7 acres at Norton, 3 acres elsewhere in Wellow and 1 acre at Cranmore. 2 Planning permission ref P/01555/11 permitted a barn and covered area with solar panels on southern roof slope in December 2011 3 Planning permission ref P/00822/11 permitted alteration and extension of existing barn to form store and workshop in August 2011 4 Planning permission ref P/01713/12 permitted the change of use of the agricultural barn and workshop permitted by P/00822/11 to form a farm shop. This permission also authorised the parking area 5 Lawful Development Certificate for proposed agricultural office, rest room, shelter and wash room, August 2011 6 Planning permission ref P/01460/11 permitted the retention and completion of works to alter vehicular access, formation of concrete apron, gravel drive and hard standing. 7 The Isle of Wight Council Core Strategy paragraph 5.31



exceptions sites in the locality and that these would meet the identified local need in the Parish. I thus find the claim that the proposal would meet a local need, as opposed to a specific need in respect of the holding, lacks cogency. Neither were arguments advanced that the proposal would enhance the viability of local communities or maintain local facilities. Thus I do not find support for the proposal in the development plan.

Essential on-site presence

11. Because there is no specific policy in the development plan in respect of the need for on-site rural workers, it is appropriate to consider the relevant Government guidance. In such circumstances, and in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.8

12. Paragraph 55 of the Framework says that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Although the appeal site is in a hamlet, this is regarded as the wider rural area in the CS and therefore for the purposes of Government policy the proposal can properly be regarded as an application for an isolated dwelling.

13. Although the tests set out in PPS79 have now been superseded by the Framework, the statements of both the parties have sought to demonstrate whether or not there is an essential need by reference to those former functional and financial tests. I consider that this approach does provide an objective, systematic and methodical way of deciding whether or not the need is essential. Essential is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as absolutely necessary, indispensable. Consequently, for the purposes of my decision, I shall first assess whether it is absolutely necessary to have an on-site presence to avoid unacceptable risk to the enterprise or, in other words, if there is a functional need which amounts to special circumstances.

14. The animals at West Wight Alpacas in November 2013 comprised 24 breeding Suri female, 4 Huacaya female, 2 stud males, 1 retired stud male and 11 males used for walking. Of these, the appellants agreed that only the pregnant females and their cria are vulnerable in terms of the need for regular supervision. The appellants also keep some poultry but said that this is not part of their core business and is scarcely economic.

15. There is no doubt that the appellants have worked hard to develop the alpaca business and their animals look well cared for. They clearly have an ambition to develop high quality animals with unusual colouring and to this end have invested in a part share of 6 stud males which are currently kept on another alpaca farm in East Sussex. Three of these animals will eventually be kept at Wellow, though I understand they will travel backwards and forwards between

8 Paragraph 14 says that where the development plan is absent, silent, or relevant policies are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole; or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. 9 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable development in Rural Areas: Annex A



the island and the mainland to enable breeding and thus will not be at Wellow all the time.

16. Evidence on the need for a permanent on-site presence was contradictory. The appellants specialist vet said, on the one hand, that it was essential to have constant supervision because the health of alpacas can rapidly decline. She also said that the gestation time for the breeding females can vary widely, from 330 days to 370 days. Therefore it is difficult to predict when birthing will take place and this is a particularly vulnerable time, as is the first 24 hours of a newborn cria. The appellants said that although supervision was particularly necessary at each birth, an on site presence is also required at other times because of the need, for example, to bottle feed some of the crias.

17. On the other hand, guidance from the British Alpaca Society (BAS) relied on by the Council and objectors says that alpacas are hardy healthy animals and, as with all livestock, they should be checked at least once a day, preferably twice. The guidance also says that alpacas usually give little indication that they are feeling unwell until they are very sick. Early indications may include loss of appetite, spending more time lying around and not keeping up with the herd. Getting to know the individuals in a herd helps ensure problems can be detected and dealt with at an early stage, but even with on-site presence it appears that some premature deaths are almost inevitable because of the ability of the animals to cover up visible signs of ill health. Although it was suggested that the BAS guidance is aimed at hobby owners rather than serious breeders I do not find this a cogent view because this is a national organisation, dedicated to the welfare of alpacas. Moreover the appellants and other breeders are registered with the society and I consider that the guidance of the BAS should be given significant weight.

18. It was agreed that most animals give birth by early afternoon and the appellants confirmed that at West Wight Alpacas the latest time they had had a birth was at 18.30hrs which could be regarded as at the end of the working day. The BAS recommends that animals should be mated to ensure that the birth of the crias takes place in late spring or early summer and because alpacas are induced ovulaters, there is some control over the timing. But although the appellants agreed that this would be ideal timing it is, they said, not possible to group the birthing because not all females become pregnant the first time they are mated. Therefore, because pregnancy lasts about 11 months there is slippage each year in terms of the month of birth and this extends the breeding season and thus the need for close supervision over several months.

19. Nevertheless, it seems to me, there is potential for significant control over the birthing. An alpaca can be kept empty if early attempts at breeding are unsuccessful. The recent purchase of more stud males was instrumental in the appellants choosing to do just that, because it ensured that females would be available for mating with the new males at a particular time. Trials of embryo transfer have taken place at Wellow and although these have not been successful this year, such intervention also indicates control over the timing of breeding. The appellants also said that shearing, which normally takes place before the onset of hot weather, is very stressful for the animals and thus should not take place while the animals are pregnant. I heard that females can delay giving birth if the weather is inclement. Thus planning for birth to take place in the months recommended by BAS appears to have several advantages



in terms of animal husbandry, as the cria would be born at the optimum time and shearing of adult females could take place after birth. It seems to me that exercising control over breeding should be within the power of the appellants, although they say that it would harm the viability of the enterprise. I shall come back to this point later in my decision.

20. The appellants also said that an on-site presence is essential because of other incidents and also because of the high value of the animals. One incident was reported of a stud male getting his head stuck in fencing and others of animals getting caught in the wrappings of hay bales. But the appellants clearly know the individual animals, as is recommended by the BAS, and acknowledged that the particular stud male, which got stuck, is uncharacteristically curious and thus such incidents can be avoided by taking precautionary action.

21. I accept that alpacas are valuable animals and the Suri breed, which are the core of the West Wight enterprise, have been assigned a high value by an independent assessor. But judging from the sale of animals to date, which I heard were of lower value Huacaya animals, the value of the animals is not significantly different to the suggested value of a dairy cow, a comparison provided by a local farmer. Neither do the projections for the sale values of the rarer Suri alpacas indicate that the price is expected to be much greater in the future. Nor is there evidence that there is loss through animal rustling. In terms of security it seems to me that the movement of the animals would be difficult and a disincentive to theft because the animals are a rare breed, of non standard colouring, and kept on an island. I was provided with no evidence that security has been an issue even when there was no-one living on site and the animals are not insured. Hence I consider that an on-site dwelling is not essential for security purposes.

22. But even if I conclude that supervision is required for animal welfare reasons, it is appropriate to consider whether such need could be met by a worker living on the appeal site during the relevant controlled breeding season. The appellants say that this would not be feasible because the breeding season is so long. But a short breeding season is recommended by the BAS and it does appear that there is significant control over this factor. Evidence was given that night-time births are unusual, and none has occurred on this holding. Hence, because most care needs can be met during the day and the breeding season can be shortened, I consider it is unlikely that the welfare of the animals would suffer if a worker is on site overnight during the planned breeding season only.

23. Moreover, closer supervision could be provided by an existing property elsewhere in the locality, particularly as there are other dwellings close by. My attention was drawn to appeal decisions submitted by the appellant where the Inspector had accepted that alternative accommodation would only be feasible if such accommodation is within sight and sound of the animals and not more than 500m distant. I do not know the details of these other cases, but from what I have seen I do not consider the situations are comparable to that before me. None of the appeal decisions relied upon was in the locality and only one has been decided since the publication of the Framework. In that case10, because of the appellants particular personal circumstances, there appeared to be no other realistic alternative to an on-site caravan.

10 Appeal ref APP/P1133/A/12/2188539



24. The Council provided an example of an available property 600m to the west of the appeal site, and residents said that several properties had come up for sale within the hamlet of Wellow. This latter included a house located immediately adjacent to the appeal site. This evidence was not challenged by the appellants, and therefore it seems to me that alternative accommodation has been, and probably is likely to become, available in a location that would facilitate close supervision of the alpaca herd.

25. The appellants said that the enterprise would not be able to fund either the purchase or the rental of an off-site house, but the evidence suggested that other sources of income may be available. The appellants have funded West Wight Alpacas from a variety of sources, including a loan from the Isle of Wight lottery, grants from Government business start up funds and also by participating in apprenticeship schemes.

26. However the appellants have also used their own private funds and have other business interests. I acknowledge that this does not undermine their intentions in the long term to have a self financing business. But, because major parts of the business including the costs of new stud stock and the additional land, have been funded by their other income streams I am not convinced that the purchase or rental of existing accommodation close to the appeal site is not feasible. I also accept that the acquisition of adjacent land was a unique opportunity, but this additional land is not, based on the appellants own business plan, essential to the business targets. In such circumstances, the picture presented by appellants is that they have not taken up opportunities for off-site housing because they would prefer to live on site. This does not demonstrate that funding priority has been given to obtaining accessible living accommodation and undermines the claim that living on-site is essential.

27. It seems to me, on balance, that the special circumstances required by the Framework in terms of an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently on site to ensure the welfare of the alpacas have not been demonstrated. Accordingly, I consider that a constant on-site presence would not be justified.

Permanence

28. In order to assess the sustainability of the proposed development in this rural location it is appropriate to assess the permanence or long-term viability of the alpaca enterprise. Whilst the application is for a temporary period, this needs to be assessed in the same manner as an application for a permanent dwelling with appropriate allowance for start up costs and reduced profitability in the early years. For this purpose the submitted financial evidence is pertinent.

29. As to evidence of investment into the business, the building now used as the caf/shop has been constructed together with another barn and significant ground-works. There has also been investment in the purchase of high quality new stock including a part share in stud males brought in from America. Thus there is a commitment to building up the business and the purchase of the additional land has ensured that there is sufficient pasture on this holding, thereby reducing the reliance on rented land, for the target herd of 70 alpacas. All of these factors demonstrate a long term commitment and weigh in favour of permission.

30. A copy of the abbreviated accounts was provided at the Hearing but such evidence is broad brush and does not give a clear outline of the business.



Consequently, the business plan is more helpful in providing information about the business as a whole. The appellants evidence confirms that the actual takings for the shop/caf and alpaca trekking over the summer months of 2013 were less than had been projected, but in general it is clear that this part of the business is very significant in terms of the viability of the enterprise as a whole. The wool from the fleeces raises about 8000 per year and thus part of the shop income is directly attributable to the proceeds arising from the agricultural holding. However, it appears the other stock and the caf refreshments are bought-in. Thus the appellants agreed, based on the 2013 projections, that about 15% of the total income of the enterprise is from the on-site breeding and stud alpacas and the wool from their fleeces. They also agreed that the trekking alpacas do not require close supervision and these are, at times, kept on other rented land.

31. In 2013 the funding of the enterprise was heavily subsidised by the appellants and only a small profit is shown, but this is not unusual in a business start up. By 2015 the projections show a profit of 26,040. This is based on the sale of 14 alpacas, and an increase in stud services. But because the total number of alpacas is shown only to have increased by 3 the wool income is unlikely to be significantly more than in 2013. Consequently, the proportion of the total income from the animals that are said to require close supervision would be about 32%. Accordingly the viability of the enterprise appears to depend more on the caf and shop rather than the breeding of alpacas. Thus, it seems to me, that exercising control over the breeding season would not harm the viability of the business as a whole. The caf and shop rely, to a considerable extent, on bought-in goods and would not, in the terms of the Framework, generate an essential need for a rural worker to live on or near the appeal site.

32. Furthermore, as the Council say, the figures in the business plan do not include reasonable takings by the appellants in terms of a wage commensurate with their role in the enterprise. Nor do they include all the costs and expenditure which are part of the business, such as some vet expenditure and the embryo transfer process in particular. This appears to be an important part of the progression towards raising the quality of the blood stock, which is said to be the core of the alpaca business. Neither do the business plan expenses include payment for knitting at a market rate, other wages, rental of land, the purchase of the adjacent land for 240,000, or any allowance for depreciation. Thus even if the shop stock in hand is added to the profit shown for Year 4, it does not seem to me that the enterprise as a whole would be self financing. Hence I find that even by 2016, the viability of West Wight Alpacas, whether based on the income directly from agricultural operations on the holding, or on all parts of the business considered together, would be at best marginal.

33. Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the business plan does not reflect the true costs of the enterprise and thus over-estimates the likely profit to be generated. Although there has been significant investment in land, buildings and stock, and this demonstrates commitment, there does not appear to be a reasonable likelihood that the business would be viable by the end of the 3 year period and at that time the temporary consent, if permitted, would lapse. In these circumstances, Circular 11/95 Use of conditions in planning permission11, advises that a second temporary permission should not normally be permitted. Neither does it seem likely the enterprise would be able to afford

11 Paragraph 112 Circular 11/95 Use of conditions in planning permission



the construction of a permanent dwelling once the temporary consent has lapsed.

Conclusions

34. Accordingly, although I acknowledge that the enterprise appears well run and there is clear evidence of investment in the land, buildings and animals, I have found, for the reasons I have given, that there is no demonstrable essential need for a rural worker to live on-site all year round. I thus conclude that there is insufficient agricultural justification, or essential and permanent need to justify the siting of a temporary dwelling in the countryside. Neither is the business, and in particular the agricultural element of it, likely to be financially sustainable within 3 years. Hence the essential ongoing needs of the alpaca enterprise do not outweigh the aims of policies seeking to limit development to defined settlements.

35. I have taken account of the support of the Isle of Wight branch of the National Farmers Union, and the confidence shown by other organisations that have given grants and loans to the business. But this support does not outweigh my conclusion that not only would the development conflict with the aims of CS Policy SP1, but it would also not meet the guidance in the Framework that says special circumstances are required to justify an isolated dwelling in the countryside. For these reasons an on-site caravan would significantly and demonstrably harm the aims of sustainable development policies. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Sukie Tamplin

INSPECTOR



APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANTS:

David Long BA (Hons) P & D, MA RTPI

Christopher Scott Ltd, Planning and Development

Claire E Whitehead BVM&S MS FHEA MRCVS Diplomate ACVIM (Large Animal) (Part Hearing by conference call)

Camelid Veterinary Services Ltd

Michelle Payne Appellant in person Neil Payne Appellant in person FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Russell Chick Principal Planning Officer INTERESTED PERSONS:

Pam Broadhead Chair, Shalfleet Parish Council John Heather Isle of Wight Branch, National Farmers Union Fiona Grist Isle of Wight Lottery Bob and Sandie Denman Local residents David and Sandy Walter Local residents Steve and Jill Cawley Local residents DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING 1 Letter on behalf of Camelid Veterinary Services Ltd dated

3 November 2013 submitted by the appellants 2 Abbreviated Accounts and Report of the Directors for the period

4 February 2011-31 March 2012 submitted by the appellants 3 Excerpt from The Farm Management Pocket Book (Nix) submitted

by the Council.

Documents

Ww Alpacas Decision