-
01 Reference Number: P/00608/14 - TCP/30601/L Description of
application: Continued siting of caravan for use as agricultural
workers dwelling
Site Address: West Wight Alpacas, land accessed off, Main Road,
Wellow, Yarmouth, Isle Of Wight, PO41
This application is recommended for approval of planning
permission
REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The Local Member has
requested that the application is heard by the Planning Committee
due to the previously refused planning application and appeal and
the ongoing public concern about the proposal.
MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Whether there is an essential need for the mobile home, having
regard to national and local planning policy guidance concerning
isolated dwellings in the countryside
The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of
the surrounding area
The impact of the proposal on nearby properties and uses
Highway implications
1. Details of Application
1.1. Planning permission is sought for the continued use of a
mobile home as an agricultural workers dwelling for a period of 3
years. The mobile home has been used for residential purposes since
2012 and the applicants are seeking to regularise the situation.
The applicants justification is based on the need for a rural
worker to live at the site at all times in connection with the
alpaca farm.
1.2 The submitted plans show the unit to be typical of a mobile
home and that it would measure 3.8m in width, 11m in length and 3m
in height from ground floor level. The mobile home is currently
located to the west of the main access to the site, to the rear of
an existing caf/shop and to the front of another caravan, which is
used as a farm office.
1.3 The applicants have provided a detailed business
justification, which is accompanied by technical information from
specialist vets.
2. Location and Site Characteristics
-
2.1 The application site is located on the western outskirts of
Wellow, a rural hamlet characterised by ribbon development. The
area surrounding the application site comprises a mix of housing,
although most houses are detached and there are many examples of
older cottages and houses set within large well landscaped gardens.
The pattern of development is spacious, with generous gaps
separating properties. There are also large fields between some
dwellings and these add to the rural character of the area. The
wider area is distinctly rural, with large open fields and areas of
mature woodland that are readily visible from the narrow highways
that run throughout Wellow and Thorley.
2.2 The application site is used as an alpaca farm and comprises
three fields that are located to the south of the main highway and
that extend to an area of 8.1 hectares. The site slopes gradually
from south to north and is approximately 1m higher than the
highway. The fields are enclosed by mature hedges and therefore,
from the highway the site is partially screened. The site includes
one vehicular access, located within the centre of the northern
boundary and adjacent to Main Road. The access includes a narrow
concrete apron which abuts the highway, with the remainder finished
in bound material. The access leads to a parking area.
2.3 The site comprises several buildings which are located
within the north west corner of the site, adjacent to the public
highway. These include a recently constructed detached barn, a
former pig sty which has been converted to a caf and store and
various field shelters and caravans. There are also two mobile
homes located within this area of the site; the first is used as a
farm office and the second, as a unit of residential accommodation.
The second mobile home is the subject of this planning
application.
2.4 To the north of the site are several houses that include New
Barn Farm, Marshfield Farm and Lime Barn. Further west is a
property known as Rose Bank and the east, Flowerburn Cottage.
3. Relevant History
3.1. P/00822/11 - TCP/30601 - Alteration and extension to
existing barn to form
store and workshop - Granted planning permission 15th August
2011.
3.2 P/00966/11 - AGN/30601/A - Agricultural Prior Notification
for storage barn Objection raised 29th July 2011.
3.3 P/00970/11 - LDC/30601/C - Lawful Development Certificate
for proposed agricultural office, rest room, shelter and wash room
- Granted planning permission 30th August 2011.
3.4 P/01460/11 - Retention and completion of works to alter
vehicular access; formation of concrete apron and gravel drive;
hardstanding Granted planning permission 9th January 2012.
3.5 P/01555/11 - Proposed barn and covered area with solar
panels on southern
-
roof slope - Granted planning permission 21st December 2011.
3.6 P/01713/12 - Change of use of part of agricultural barn and
workshop to form farm shop; parking Granted planning permission
18th January 2013
3.7 P/01714/12 - Proposed agricultural storage barn Granted
planning permission 13th February 2013
3.8 P/01784/12 - Continued siting of caravan for use of
agricultural workers
dwelling Refused 21st February 2013. Subsequent appeal dismissed
22nd November 2013.
3.9 E/30610/B Enforcement case generated 20th April 2012
relating to the
unauthorised siting of a mobile home for use as a dwelling. This
case was opened following complaints from members of the public.
The Council served an enforcement notice on 12th June 2014, which
took effect on 24th July 2014. The notice requires the residential
use to cease and for the mobile home to be removed within 6 months.
The notice is currently in abeyance pending the outcome of the
current planning application.
4. Development Plan Policy
National Planning Policy
4.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes
guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in
drawing up plans and as a material consideration on determining
applications. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour
of sustainable development. Of specific relevance to this
application is the guidance contained within section 55 of the
NPPF. This indicates that isolated homes in the countryside should
be avoided, except under special circumstances, including the
essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near
their place of work. Local Planning Policy
4.2 The application site is located outside of a defined
settlement boundary and within the Wider Rural Area. The following
policies are relevant to this application:
SP1 - Spatial Strategy Supports development on appropriate land
within or immediately adjacent the defined settlement boundaries of
the Key Regeneration Areas, Smaller Regeneration Areas and Rural
Service Centres.
SP2 - Housing Sets out the requirement for an average of 520
new
dwellings per year, and sets out a distribution for the delivery
of new housing on the Island, including the provision of 1350 new
dwellings within the Medina Valley over the period 2011 2027.
-
SP5 - Environment Offers support for proposals that protect,
conserve and/ or enhance the Islands natural and historic
environments, and to protect the integrity of international,
national and local designations.
DM2 - Design Quality for New Development Gives support to
proposals for high quality and inclusive design to protect,
conserve and enhance the existing environment whilst allowing
change to take place. The policy states that relevant information
relating to the site size, location and context is required and
that proposals will be expected to provide an attractive,
functional and adaptable built environment, optimise the potential
of the site taking into account constraints, be appropriately
landscaped and compliment the surrounding area.
DM11 Historic and Built Environment States that the Council
will
support proposals that positively conserve and enhance the
special character of the Islands historic and built
environment.
DM12 Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity and Geodiversity:
States
that the Council will support proposals that conserve, enhance
and promote the landscape, seascape, biodiversity, and geological
interest of the Island.
5. Consultee and Third Party Comments External Consultees
5.1 The Highway Engineer from Island Roads on behalf of the
Highway Authority advised that works to the eastern visibility
splays connected to the site access should be completed to provide
a splay measuring 2.4 x 101m.
5.2 The Councils external agricultural consultant concluded that
the applicants have justified a need for a full-time worker to
reside at the site. The agricultural consultants detailed comments
are set out within the policy section of this report. Parish/Town
Council Comments
5.3 Shalfleet Parish Council objected to the proposed
development, stating that the sustainability of the business has
not been proven and that recent appeal was dismissed. Third Party
Representations
5.4 The Council has received 19 letters of objection in relation
to the proposed development, which included comments that can be
summarised as follows:
The tests in the NPPF have not been met
The animals need to be well looked after and this should be met
by experienced and well trained staff
-
Good husbandry can be met by visiting the animal regularly
There are affordable houses within the area that could be
used
Precedent
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the business is
sustainable and does not justify a dwelling at this site
Payment to workers is not sustainable (too low)
Changes to HSE and DEFRA legislation are likely to result in
higher costs particularly for bovine tuberculosis
The health and safety procedures are not sufficient
Potential for bovine tuberculosis (bTb) to be brought to the
Island
The site is under-insured
The application should not have been validated due to the
similarities between it and the previous submission
The need for a dwelling should have been taken into account
within the business model
There is no evidence that 10,000 people visit the site each
year
The business is not a farm and is a tourism site
The owners could have spent money purchasing a nearby property
or have bought a site with a property already on it
There are valuable animals in fields across the country without
owners living adjacent to them
An enforcement notice has been served and so the owners should
move off of the land
5.5 A further 35 letters of support were submitted, which
included comments that
can be summarised as follows:
The owners have worked hard to establish long term growth
This is a high quality rural business
The business provided high quality alpacas to the UK and
European market
The business provides a valuable resource for tourists and local
people as well as providing rural employment
There are a number of husbandry issues that require a worker to
live at the site
It is important that the owners live on site to care for the
animals/ animals are valuable and rare
The evidence provided by experts points towards the need for
workers to live at the site
Due to the number of animals the owners should be able to live
on site
The whole family work on the farm together
Rural areas should be thriving and industrious places
Potential for animal thefts
The business is financially sound
The planning inspector did not take account of all financial
information during the recent appeal
The financial projections are conservative but show that the
business can be viable and prosperous
The application is supported by the only two vets that
specialise in
-
camelids in the UK
The owners need to live on site to prevent health issues
Alpacas are prone to flight and can injure themselves when
frightened
Pregnant females need to be checked every 40 minutes
If the applicants could not live on the site then the business
may have to close and result in a loss of employment
It should be noted that the above letters of support included
responses from the National Farmers Union and the Isle of Wight
Chamber of Commerce
6. Evaluation
Principle
6.1
Current national planning policy guidance relating to rural
worker's dwellings is contained within paragraph 55 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This indicates that isolated
homes in the countryside should be avoided, except under special
circumstances, including the essential need for a rural worker to
live permanently at or near their place of work.
6.2 The Island Plan Core Strategy also seeks to restrict new
residential development in rural areas and requires new development
to take place within defined settlement boundaries in order to
direct development to the most sustainable locations. Policy SP1 of
the Core Strategy sets a hierarchy of settlements beginning with
three key regeneration areas (The Medina Valley, Ryde and the Bay),
then two smaller regeneration areas (Freshwater and Ventnor) and
finally a further eleven rural service centres within which new
development will be expected to be directed. The areas that fall
outside of defined settlements are defined as the Wider Rural Area,
where new development will require specific justification and
unless this is demonstrated, development will not be supported.
6.3 The application site is located between Wellow and Thorley,
both rural hamlets that lack services or facilities other than a
rural post office. There are no other services other than an
Anglican Church in Thorley and a Baptist Church in Wellow. The
nearest town is Yarmouth, which lies approximately 5km west of
Wellow. As a result, the site is located in a less sustainable area
within which new residential development requires a specific local
need. This approach is consistent with the wording contained within
paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
6.4 The proposal seeks a temporary unit of accommodation for a
period of three years so that the owners of the site can tend to
the needs of an alpaca breeding business. Thus, the applicant seeks
to establish that there is an essential need for a rural worker to
live on site at most times.
6.5 Until recently, planning authorities assessed applications
for rural workers dwellings against the guidance contained within
annexe A to PPS 7. It is considered logical to assess this
development in the manner advocated by annexe A of the now
cancelled PPS 7, but to relate the assessment to the
-
guidance contained within the NPPF and policy SP1 (Spatial
Strategy) of the Island Plan. Given that the NPPF gives no guidance
on how to assess the essential need for a rural worker to live at
the site, this approach is considered to be a rational and
reasonable approach to assessing planning applications of this
nature and it should be noted that during the recent appeal
relating to this site, the Planning Inspector followed a similar
approach. The following sub-headings will be assessed, below:
1. Whether there is a functional need for a worker to present at
most times 2. Whether the business is financially sound and has a
reasonable
prospect of remaining so 3. Whether the functional need could be
performed by an existing dwelling
at the site or in the locality The tests contained within Annexe
A relating to applications of a temporary nature also require clear
evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise
concerned to be assessed. The current business operation
6.6 Since the recent appeal decision, the applicants have chosen
to submit a revised planning application. In doing so, further
evidence has been provided to support the applicant's intention to
reside at the site. The applicants have provided supporting
information from an agricultural specialist, as well as further
information from vets that work with alpacas.
6.7 The applicant's agricultural appraisal outlines the current
components of the business. The alpaca stud includes 8.1 hectares
(20.15 acres) of agricultural land, which is retained as grazing
pasture. A further 4 hectares (10 acres) of farmland is rented in
the locality. The site also includes a recently constructed barn,
which is used to store feed and equipment relating to the business
as well as an older brick building which had previously performed
the function of a barn/ piggery. This building has recently been
converted to a cafe and shop that specialises in selling alpaca
related products such as clothes and wool. There is also a range of
temporary structures used in connection with the stud. Whether
there is a functional need for a worker to present at most
times
6.8 The applicant's view is that there is a need for a rural
worker to be resident at the site at all times. Given that the
Island Plan and NPPF aim to restrict the provision of new homes in
rural and isolated locations, it is important to assess whether the
applicants have demonstrated a functional need for a rural worker
to reside at the site on a full-time basis. The Council's opinion
is that this issue relates to the management of the alpaca herd
rather than the on-site cafe. This opinion is reflected within
paragraph 5.6 of the applicant's justification
6.9 At the heart of the applicant's reasoning for a functional
need are the welfare requirements of the alpacas, particularly
breeding females when in pregnancy and giving birth (termed
unpacking) and the new born alpacas, referred to as cria. At the
time of the recent appeal the site included 24 breeding suri
females, 4 huacayas females, 2 stud males, 1 retired stud male and
11 males
-
used for walking - a total of 42 alpacas. The business also held
a 50 per cent share of 6 alpacas kept on a farm in East Sussex.
6.10 Since that time the applicants have expanded the number of
animals housed at the application site. The holding now comprises a
total of 64 Alpacas along with 7 Llamas, 4 pygmy goats, 8 Jacobs
sheep ewes and 2 rams. The holding also includes 150 poultry birds
of which 50 are rare breeds and 100 laying hybrids. The eggs
collected are sold from the site. The applicants have also
purchased 2 miniature donkeys.
6.11 The break down of alpacas owned by the business is as
follows:
3 stud males (suris) which are shared with Spring Farm, East
Sussex along with a further 3 three more stud males and a
female
3 stud males (suris) wholly owned by the applicants
2 stud males (Huacayas)
13 wethers and walkers alpacas (some will be sold and replaced
with 2014 male cria that are not of stud quality)
4 male walking llamas (3 adult one cria)
3 female llamas (two pregnant, one cria)
25 pregnant suri females
3 pregnant huacayas
(Total to birth in 2015 Alpacas and Llamas = 30 animals) 2014
Cria currently retained
8 males
7 females
Total alpacas and llamas on site 71
6.12 During the previous planning application the applicants
reasoned that it was essential for a full time worker to reside at
the site in order to care for the livestock kept on the holding;
this remains their opinion. The applicant's agricultural report
states that the business generates the need for more than one full
time worker and outlines at section 5.6 the range of tasks
undertaken by workers. Officers view remains that many of the tasks
listed within this section can be undertaken during the working
day, as in the case of many other farming operations. For example,
movement of animals, feeding, work to maintain pasture, general
maintenance, hay making, shearing and sales of yarn would not
justify a dwelling at this site.
6.13 Therefore, it is Officers opinion that the health
requirements of the alpacas is the key issue relating to the
functional need for a worker to be at the site on a permanent
basis. The applicants agricultural consultant has outlined the
requirements of the Animal Welfare Act, referring to several
paragraphs contained within this legislation. However, while the
Act is important, its content outlines the best practice for
keeping livestock and does not provide any detailed justification
relating to the specific requirements of the application site.
-
6.14 The Council's agricultural consultant has concluded that
the Animal Welfare
Act would not significantly alter the requirement for the
applicants to reside at the site on a full time basis. This is
because the requirements of the Act could be reasonably met by
managing the livestock in a manner similar to a shepherd and that
such tasks could be undertaken during daylight hours. As a result,
the Council's agricultural consultant has advised that based solely
on the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act, that the functional
need test would not be satisfied.
6.15 However, the applicants have provided detailed information
relating to the requirements of the livestock kept on the holding.
This information includes submissions from vets and alpaca
specialists. A supporting letter has been provided by Karin
Mueller, an experienced vet who specialises in the care of
camelids, a group that includes camels, llamas and alpacas. The
supporting letter outlines the health care requirements for alpacas
and sets out at length the risks associated with keeping and
breeding them. This information generally replicates that submitted
in support of the previous planning application (P/01784/12) but
far more detail is provided to demonstrate the nature and
likelihood of risks associated with the breeding process.
6.16 The letter advises that the average gestation period for
alpacas is 344 days. However, on average, 10 per cent of females
may give birth up to two weeks either side of the gestation period.
Studies undertaken in relation to 736 pregnancies have shown that
the gestation period ranged between 298 to 392 days, resulting in a
window of 3 months for giving birth. As a result, it is the
applicant's view that there is uncertainty as to the length of the
gestation period, which adds to the argument for a worker to be
resident at the site at all times.
6.17 The applicant's submitted information states that illness
is difficult to detect in alpacas because being prey animal they
disguise signs of weakness and usually only show signs of disease,
imminent birth and distress when beyond recovery. It is argued,
therefore, that there is a need to be at the site from early
morning to late evening so that the behaviour and habits of each
animal are well known, so that any signs of odd behaviour can be
seen. Furthermore, it is argued that the birthing process (termed
as unpacking) can be difficult to detect. These points are also
referred to within a supporting letter from a second vet, Claire
Whitehead, also a specialist in the care of camelids.
6.18 During the previous application the Council researched a
range of existing literature relating to llamas and alpacas. The
Council referred to a book published in 2006 by Gina Bromage, which
related to the care of llamas and alpacas. The Council also
referred to guidance published by the British Alpaca Society (BAS).
This literature seemed to contradict the health requirements
averred by the applicants. In particular, Bromage (2006) reasoned
that alpacas cope well with normal British weather conditions and
have no requirement for housing as their coats are weatherproof but
that alpacas do require shelter during long periods of inclement
weather.
6.19 Moreover, the BAS stated that generally, alpacas have
adapted very well to life
-
in Britain, are hardy, healthy animals that are relatively easy
to keep but that should be checked at least once a day but
preferably twice a day. The BAS stated that owners will be better
placed to tell when an animal is out of sorts by spending time with
them, acknowledging that Alpacas give little indication that they
are unwell until they are very sick. In assessing the subsequent
planning appeal, the Planning Inspector gave weight to the BAS
guidance. The Inspector also reasoned that there would be potential
for significant control over birthing and that control over the
breeding period could be exercised so that births took place within
a targeted season. Thus the requirement for a worker to be resident
on site could be fulfilled on a seasonal basis.
6.20 The applicants have now provided further information to
outline why in their opinion, the birthing season cannot be
realistically targeted and to justify the presence of a worker on
site at all times. Both of the supporting letters provided by
specialist vets point to the difficulties in targeting a seasonal
birthing programme, as normal for other animals such as cattle or
sheep.
6.21 For example, the supporting letter provided by Karin
Mueller advises that for alpaca businesses to remain viable,
females should be re-bred every year following birth. However, the
duration of gestation and the potential for the average gestation
period to be exceeded reduces the ability to target birth. It is
advised that females cannot be bred for 20 days following birth and
that studies show that success in conception stands at 40.7 per
cent. As a result, on average, a female requires more than one
'service' to achieve successful pregnancy even for healthy animals.
Indeed, research referred to by Claire Whitehead (Vaughan et al,
2006) showed that camelids conceive in the first three attempts 90
per cent of the time but that environmental conditions, nutrition
levels and fertility mean that conception rates vary between 50 to
90 per cent. This level variability would impact on a collective
targeted birthing season for all alpacas on the holding.
6.22 Furthermore, Mueller suggests that leaving a female un-bred
for a long period in order to target a specific time of year for
breeding would be counter-productive. This is because studies
relating to other species such as cattle have shown that
substantially extending the interval between calving and
re-breeding can result in lower fertility and poor pregnancy rates.
As a result, it is argued that for the business to be viable and
for re-breeding to be successful, females must be re-bred within
good time of unpacking. Given the variable gestation period and
potential for several attempts to be required for breeding, it is
argued that a targeted season for birthing would not be realistic.
This view is agreed upon by Claire Whitehead, who reasons that
attempting to stick to a narrow birthing window is impractical and
non-viable.
6.23 In addition, since the recent appeal, the BAS has written
to the Council to confirm that their guidance relating to animal
husbandry has been updated and that previous guidance is out of
date. This is a material change, given that both the Council and
Planning Inspector gave weight to their earlier advice. Previous
BAS guidance had advised that alpacas have adapted very well to
life in Britain, are hardy, healthy animals that are relatively
easy to keep but that should be checked at least once a day but
preferably twice a day. The guidance stated that owners will be
better placed to tell when an animal is out of sorts by spending
time with them, acknowledging that alpacas give little
-
indication that they are unwell until they are very sick. The
BAS website had also previously advised that births could be timed
to take place in the Spring.
6.24 However, the chairman of the BAS has written in support of
the current application and has advised that the section of the BAS
website relating to gestation would be updated. In particular, the
BAS have commented on four areas of breeding; these four areas are
gestation, re-breeding, conception problems and pregnancy
failure.
6.25 With respect to gestation, the BAS advise that alpacas have
a very wide gestation period that can vary between animals and
indeed, for a particular animal between separate gestation cycles.
According to the BAS, this makes planning for the timing of mating
very difficult. Moreover, the BAS advise that breeding following
birth can be delayed by a number of factors. Furthermore, it is
stated that this cycle can be affected by the success rate for
conception. As a result, the BAS conclude that it is not feasible
for UK alpaca breeders to restrict planned births to a narrow
window because each animal will conceive and then give birth later
in the year as each pregnancy takes place.
6.26 Concerning welfare, the BAS have advised that their
comments on this issue will be updated. The BAS have advised that
it is important to spend time with animals in order to get to know
the subtle differences in behaviour between individuals so that
action can be taken should illness occur. According to the BAS this
is particularly important for young cria (recently bred alpacas),
which can become unwell very quickly. Likewise, the BAS advise that
pregnant alpacas should be checked regularly for signs of
illness.
6.27 In addition, Gina Bromage has also provided a supporting
letter, which queries the use of her book (Bromage, 2006). The
Council took into account advice within Llamas and Alpacas: a guide
to management when assessing the previous planning application. The
advice within this book appeared to contradict some of the welfare
requirements cited by the applicants. It should be noted that the
Council carefully researched this book and its references to
general care for both breeding and non-breeding alpacas.
6.28 However, the author has since written to the Council
advising that while alpacas are a hardy animal, the differences in
climate between their native habitat and the UK can result in
welfare issues. For example, in their native habitat in South
America adverse weather conditions are cold but dry whereas in the
UK adverse weather can be cold and wet. Because alpaca fleeces are
parted along the ridge of the animals back, this can lead to
problems for coping with rainfall. As a result, Bromage advises
that alpacas often exist in a state of marginal health, which
raises the requirement for close supervision.
6.29 It is also argued that because alpacas are flight animals,
they change behaviour when approached. As a result, it is advised
that when pregnant, alpacas are viewed from distance so that
changes in behaviour, particularly for those about to given birth,
can be detected. This does bring into question the proximity of the
alpacas at the application site to the cafe and visitors. However,
Officers acknowledge the more detailed advice and the references to
abnormal behaviour.
-
6.30 Furthermore, the author does acknowledge that since the
time of writing her
book (2005), the veterinary understanding of South American
camelids has developed. It is reasoned that it is now understood
that breeding females and growing cria require a great deal of care
and supervision and that where this is absent, significant
financial losses can be caused.
6.31 The Council's agricultural consultant has noted the level
of supervision required at the application site. At the time of the
agricultural consultant's appraisal, a total of 17 alpacas had
given birth. While a vet had not been required for any of the
births, it is noted that 5 had needed assistance when giving birth.
Nevertheless, 90 per cent of births took place before 2pm, although
the applicants had experience of births taking place as late as
10pm.
6.32 The Council's agricultural consultant has noted that almost
one third of alpacas required assistance during birth and that
young alpacas should be watched carefully when weaned from their
mothers. The Council's consultant has advised that it would not be
financially viable for the alpacas to be bred on a seasonal basis
and that as a result, animals would give birth all year round,
ruling out the potential for a seasonal worker to perform a
functional requirement.
6.33 Officers note that breeding for typical farm animals is
generally targeted to certain seasons. For example, in the case of
cattle (both dairy and beef operations) and sheep, breeding cycles
are timed to certain times of the year for practical reasons.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the breeding cycle for alpacas
varies greatly from cattle and sheep. For example, the gestation
cycle for sheep is 152 days and for cattle, 273 days. The shorter
gestation times would allow contingency for varied pregnancy terms
so that longer or shorter terms and then the need for conception
could still be accommodated within a yearly cycle. In the case of
alpacas, based on the above information, this would not appear to
be as practical within a yearly cycle.
6.34 Moreover, the Council's consultant has noted the issues
relating to conception for alpacas, recognising that all animals
cannot be bred at the same time. This advice follows that provided
by the BAS and the supporting letters provided by specialist vets.
The Council's agricultural consultant has concluded that there is a
requirement for a person responsible for the welfare of the alpacas
to be on hand and readily available at most times and that the
functional requirement has been fulfilled.
6.35 Officers note that this is a finely balanced issue. The
recently refused planning application was successfully defended at
appeal and it is noted that the Planning Inspector reached similar
conclusions to the Council with respect to the management of the
herd at West Wight Alpacas. Officers remain of the opinion that
many of the tasks required for the management of the herd and the
holding can be undertaken within the working day and that as a
result, such tasks could be undertaken by a peripatetic worker,
much the same as a shepherd.
6.36 Moreover, Officers remain unconvinced that a worker would
need to be
-
resident at all times for security reasons. Within the
applicant's supporting information a press clipping has been
provided in relation to an attack on sheep by a dog at Little Span
Farm, close to Wroxall. This is an unfortunate and regrettable
incident. However, there is no evidence to show that such an event
has taken place at the application site and so limited weight is
apportioned to this issue.
6.37 However, weight must be given to the welfare needs of
breeding females when in pregnancy, when at the point of giving
birth, to the care of young cria and the process of re-breeding
females once birth has taken place. The information provided by
specialist vets and the BAS have built on that provided during the
previous planning application and this shows a consensus amongst
professionals that constant supervision is required for alpacas
when in pregnancy and around the time of giving birth.
6.38 During the previous planning application and appeal, both
the Council and Planning Inspector considered whether the birthing
period could be tailored to a specific season and as a consequence,
the need for supervision could be met by a seasonal worker. Advice
within Bromage, 2006 and on the BAS website pointed towards the
potential for a seasonal worker. At that time, conflicting advice
was provided by different professionals.
6.39 However, more recent advice provided by the BAS and the
Author of Llamas and Alpacas: a guide to management, has shown that
there is an agreement amongst specialists that the birthing season
is difficult to target due to the variability of gestation periods
and the issues surrounding the success of conception when
re-breeding. Furthermore, it is apparent that leaving a female
un-bred in order to target a specific birthing season could
exacerbate conception issues and that this could be financially
damaging to the business. Over and above this, the data provided by
the applicants has shown that their own breeding programme runs
between February and November and although it is noted that the
majority of births take place over a 5 month period, the issues
relating to the timing of conception and gestation could lead to
this period being extended. Indeed, the Councils Animal Health and
Welfare Officer has advised that there is not a clearly defined
breeding season for alpacas and it is not possible to restrict
births to small timeframes due to variations in gestation and
breeding.
6.40 Added to this, a greater understanding of alpacas within
the UK appears to show that great care is needed at most times for
pregnant alpacas and their young. It is apparent that alpacas are
valuable animals and that the loss of several breeding females or
their young as a result of a lack of vigilance could lead to severe
financial implications for the business. During pregnancy,
complications can be difficult to spot without close supervision
and during birth alpacas are vulnerable to difficult birthing
(dystocia) which if not diagnosed or treated promptly can lead to
serious health issues or the loss of animals.
6.41 It is also important for a person to be present to ensure
that the cria receives the first milk (colostrum) at the correct
time. This is particularly important in animals because their
immune system is not fully developed when first born. Therefore,
the cria must rely on the immunity provided by the antibodies
within
-
colostrum during the early stages of life and it is important
that a person is on hand to ensure that the cria suckles correctly
and that there are no other health issues both for the cria and the
mother.
6.42 It is also apparent that since the date of the appeal, the
owners have increased the size of their herd and have undertaken
significant investment to secure high quality males in order to
improve their blood stock. Therefore, while this is a finely
balanced issue, it is considered that the additional information
has demonstrated that a worker is required on site at most times
and that as a result, the functional need test has been met.
Whether the business is financially sound and has a reasonable
prospect of remaining so
6.43 The sustainability of the business is a material
consideration given that the proposal relates to residential
development connected to a rural business. This is because it would
not be in compliance with policy guidance to permit a residential
use should the connected business be likely to fail. At the time of
the appeal the Planning Inspector concluded that the applicants had
demonstrated a long term commitment to building up the business,
which would weigh in favour of permission.
6.44 Officers recognise that significant investment has been
made by the applicants and that this has continued since the date
of the recent appeal. The number of alpacas has increased and high
quality stud males have been bought to increase the quality of
blood stock. The herd has increased in number from 46 to 71 and
this is in line with previous predictions. As a result, the
applicant's commitment to establishing a high quality rural
business is not brought into question. Nevertheless, the
sustainability of the business must be assessed.
6.45 During the previous planning application and subsequent
appeal the applicants provided completed accounts for the period
2011/ 2012 and projected accounts for 2013, 2014 and 2015. The
Council and Planning Inspector concluded that the accounts
over-estimated the profitability of the business due to an absence
of figures relating to expenditure on vet bills, embryo transfer,
wages, payments for rented land and depreciation of stock. When
taking into account these omissions, the Inspector concluded that
by 2016, the viability of West Wight Alpacas whether based on the
alpaca herd or as whole (taking into account the caf and alpacas
walks) would be at best marginal. Therefore, it was concluded that
the proposal failed the relevant financial test.
6.46 The applicants have now provided accounts for the financial
year ending 2013 and these build upon those previously provided.
Projected accounts have also been provided for the years covering
2014 to 2017. The final accounts show that the business returned a
small loss in 2013. The previous set of accounts showed that the
business returned a nominal profit in 2012. Nevertheless, it is
noted that significant expenditure relating to the purchase of high
quality alpaca studs have contributed to the decline of profit.
Importantly, the assets now held by the business have increased by
some 70,000 when compared to 2012 figures and the cash in the bank
(ready cash) has increased significantly. As a result, it is
apparent that the business has grown and that the small loss is
-
largely due to the applicant's wish to increase the value of
stock and the sustainability of the business.
6.47 The predicted budgets are considered to be extensive and
realistic. Unlike previous forecasted budgets, the submitted
information contains expenditure for wages that are reflective of
national wage levels both for the cafe business and the alpaca
breeding business. Moreover, costs relating to vet bills, embryo
transfer and depreciation of stock are included within the
accounts, providing a more realistic forecast of the assets,
liabilities, costs and returns for the business.
6.48 The forecasts have been helpfully broken down to focus on
the profitability for the alpaca business in isolation (without the
shop/ cafe) and these show that a small loss would be returned for
2015 and then reasonable profits returned for the following two
years. These profits would be similar to the average wage level for
an agricultural worker, as outlined within the John Nix Farm
Management Pocketbook. When the returns for the caf are included,
the business is shown to return healthy profits, but because this
application is being assessed on the basis of the need for a full
time worker to care for the alpaca herd, it is important to
discount the figures relating to the shop/ caf.
6.49 The Council's agricultural consultant has assessed the
applicant's financial information and has considered it to be
detailed. The agricultural consultant has noted that a small loss
would be returned for 2014 but considers that the information
demonstrates that the business would be profitable and that it
would return profits beyond what would be expected for an
agricultural worker's salary even when disregarding the income
generated by the shop and caf. The Consultant has concluded that
the business has been planned on a sound financial basis.
6.50 As a result, it is considered that the detailed financial
information has included the key costs and returns for the
business. When considering the alpaca breeding element of the
business in isolation it is considered realistic that the business
would generate suitable returns to cover its ongoing costs and
provide adequate wages for a full time worker at a suitable wage
level. Therefore, it is considered that the business has realistic
prospects of being financially sound.
6.51 At this point it is important to note that the applicant's
submitted financial information relates to a combination of
returned and predicted accounts. While the predicted accounts do
paint a picture of a profitable business, these are nevertheless
predictions and carry a degree of uncertainty. Given the potential
for market fluctuation it must be recognised that the actual
profitability of the business can only be assessed once the
projected years have taken place.
6.52 Therefore, it would be unsuitable to grant full planning
permission at this stage for a permanent unit of accommodation.
Instead, should there be no other reasons to withhold planning
consent, it would be reasonable to grant a temporary planning
permission for three years, so that at the end of this period the
actual returns of the business can be assessed and compared to the
forecasted accounts. The applicants have applied for a temporary
consent to
-
run for three years and this is considered to be consistent with
the above conclusions. Whether the functional need could be
performed by an existing dwelling at the site or in the
locality
6.53 The Council's agricultural consultant has advised that the
functional need relates to the holding and not the locality. That
is to say that the information provided has shown a need for a full
time worker to be within sight and sound of the livestock in order
to provide for their welfare.
6.54 Officers have previously concluded that a house within
reasonable distance could perform the required need for a dwelling.
However, at the time of reaching that conclusion Officers had also
concluded that there was not a demonstrable essential need for a
worker to be at the site at all times. Given the additional
information provided by the applicants and the Council's
agricultural consultant, it is now considered that such a need has
been demonstrated.
6.55 As a result, it is considered that only a dwelling located
on site or immediately adjacent to it could deliver the needs for
the business. Searches undertaken by Officers at the time of this
report being written showed that none of the properties located
adjacent to the site were for sale. As a result, it is considered
that no other property could provide for the needs of the business.
The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area
6.56 The application site lies between Thorley and Wellow, two
rural hamlets that are characterised by historic ribbon development
that follows the alignment of the highway. The southern side of the
highway is less developed, with large fields separating some of the
pockets of development. The application site forms one of these
gaps and contributes to the appearance of the area, allowing views
of the countryside to the south. The proposed mobile home would be
temporary and be located within an area of the site that is
adjacent to the highway and to the west of the site access. The
Officer site inspection showed that the mobile home is already on
site and located next to an existing mobile home that is used as a
farm office.
6.57 From the main highway the mobile home is not readily
visible from the east or west as it is screened by a mixture of
well established hedgerows and the existing storage barn that is
adjacent to the site access. In addition, the mobile home would not
be visible from viewpoints to the north, due to the high hedge that
forms the northern boundaries of the site. While a small element of
the gable of the proposed unit of workers accommodation would be
visible from the west of the site, this could be overcome by
landscaping and by painting the mobile home in a more subtle
colour.
6.58 The mobile home would be visible from the nearest
properties to the east and west (Flowerburn Cottage and Rose Bank).
However, when viewed from these properties the mobile home, by
reason of its low scale, would merge into the
-
backdrop of existing buildings and have a minor impact.
Therefore, Officers are of the opinion that the mobile home, due to
its minor scale and the presence of natural screening, would not
have a harmful impact on the countryside and that as a result, the
development would comply with the requirements of policies SP5, DM2
and DM11 of the Island Plan Core Strategy. The impact of the
proposal on nearby properties and uses
6.59 While the site is located within a rural area, there are
properties within close proximity to it. To the north is a line of
historic residential properties that include New Barn Farm,
Marshfield Farm and Lime Barn. Located 60m further west is a
property known as Rose Bank and 110m to the east, Flowerburn
Cottage. The mobile home is located to the south west of the site
access and as a result, is screened from the properties to the
north of the site by the high boundary hedges that align the
highway and the storage barn located to the west of the site
access. As a result, the mobile home would not result in
overlooking or loss of privacy for the properties to the north.
6.60 As stated above, the mobile home would be visible from the
nearest properties to the east and west (Flowerburn Cottage and
Rose Bank). Flowerburn Cottage is separated from the site of the
mobile home by approximately 110m while Rose Bank is located
approximately 60m to the east. While both properties would have
clear views of the mobile home, it is considered that the distances
between properties would prevent issues of overlooking or loss
amenity. As a result, the development would comply with the
requirements of policy DM2 of the Island Plan Core Strategy.
Highway implications
6.61 The application site is accessed from the public highway
via an existing driveway that has recently been constructed and
widened. The access slopes gently away from the highway and leads
to a parking area.
6.62 The speed limit for the adjacent public highway is 30 mph.
During the previous application, the Highway Officer stated that
speed data for the area had shown that average speeds about the
access were 32mph. As a result, the required visibility splays
about the access were concluded to be 2.4m x 90m in either
direction. In connection with a previous development improvements
to the access were undertaken and these resulted in visibility
splays to the west that would measure 2.4m x 120m. As a result, the
western visibility splay would exceed design standards.
6.63 Works to the eastern side of the access have been partially
undertaken and these involved the cutting back of hedgerows and the
re-alignment of a bank. However, the Island Roads Highway Engineer
has advised that the works are yet to be completed and that works
should be undertaken to ensure that a splay measuring 2.4m x 101m
is provided. This would result in a design compliant access to
serve the current shop, cafe and alpaca business. As a result, it
is considered reasonable to require the works to be completed
within 3 months of the date of this decision, if approved.
-
6.64 The application site benefits from a large parking area,
located between the existing storage shed and the mobile office.
This would provide a suitable area for parking vehicles associated
with the business and the proposed workers dwelling. As a result,
the development would comply with the requirements of policy DM2 of
the Island Plan Core Strategy. Other matters
6.65 Members of the public have queried why the Council has
accepted an application which is similar to that previously
determined. Officers opinion is that the applicants have provided
detailed information relating to the functional need for a worker
to reside at the site. This information is materially different to
that submitted in relation to the previous planning application and
seeks to address concerns raised by the Council and Planning
Inspector.
6.66 A member of the public has queried whether the proposal
would raise the potential for bovine tuberculosis to be spread on
the Island. It should be noted that this is not a planning issue
and that the Council can only assess whether the proposed
development is an acceptable use of the land, taking into account
planning policy guidance. Irrespective of this planning
application, the keeping of alpacas at the site for agricultural
purposes would not require planning permission.
6.67 In addition, a member of the public has queried the hygiene
practises of the site and whether adequate insurance is in place.
These issues are not relevant to planning policy guidance and
instead, are the subject of the relevant health and safety
legislation. While these issues may add to the costs outlined
within the accounts submitted by the applicants, it is considered
that the list of expenditures would cover for such matters.
6.68 Finally, a member of the public has queried the level of
insurance paid for the alpaca business. Officers have received
comments from the applicants insurers, the National Farmers Union
(NFU), who have advised that the insurance liability for the
business is reviewed on an annual basis. The NFU have advised that
the applicants have sought specialist advice relating to health and
safety and that the level of insurance liability is suitable for
the business. As a result, Officers are satisfied that the figures
provided within the business accounts for insurance payments are
realistic.
7. Conclusion
7.1 Officers are of the opinion that the proposed development
would not have a
detrimental impact on the surrounding area or nearby properties.
Moreover, the site is served by a safe means of access and
extensive parking area that could serve the proposed dwelling.
7.2 The key issue to be considered when determining this
planning application is whether a functional need for a worker to
be present at most times has been demonstrated. Officers opinion is
that based on the submitted and updated information, the applicants
have demonstrated that a worker would need to be
-
at the site at most times in order to ensure the welfare of
alpacas, particularly breeding females and new born alpacas.
7.3 Further detailed information has been provided by specialist
vets as well as the British Alpaca Society. This information
outlines the specific welfare requirements of alpacas and shows
that significant time is required to ensure the health of the herd
at the application site. The Council's agricultural consultant has
advised that the information submitted and relayed during his site
inspection has demonstrated a need for a worker to be at the site
at most times. Given the submitted information and taking into
account the advice provided by the Councils agricultural
consultant, Officers consider that on balance, a requirement for a
worker to be present at most times has been demonstrated.
7.4 Furthermore, the financial information provided by the
applicant is considered to show that the business has been planned
on a sound basis and that there is a reasonable prospect that the
business will be sustainable and able to support a rural worker. It
is considered that the needs of the business could not be met by an
alternative existing dwelling within the locality and therefore, it
is considered that the proposed temporary residential development
meets the test for demonstrating a specific local need as set out
within policy SP1 of the Island Plan Core Strategy.
7.5 Therefore, having given due weight and consideration to all
comments received in relation to this application and for the
reasons given above the proposal is considered to comply with the
requirements of the policies listed within this justification and
therefore it is recommended that this proposal is granted temporary
planning consent for a period of three years.
8. Recommendation
Temporary planning consent for three years.
9. Statement of Proactive Working
9.1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, the
Isle of Wight
Council takes a positive approach to development proposals
focused on solutions to secure sustainable developments that
improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the
area in the following way:
4. The IWC offers a pre-application advice service 5. Updates
applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the
processing of their application and suggest solutions where
possible In this instance the applicant was asked to supply
additional information relating to business accounts and the
numbers of livestock owned by the business. The information was
provided as requested and as a result, the Council held sufficient
information to allow the application to be determined.
-
Conditions/Reasons
1 The mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed and the land
restored to its
former condition within three years of the date of this decision
in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority or within two months of Mr
and Mrs Payne ceasing to occupy the mobile home, whichever is the
sooner. Reason: The mobile home is not a structure considered
suitable for permanent retention, to allow the Local Planning
Authority to assess the functional need for a full time worker
based on future financial information and to comply with the advice
contained within the NPPF and policies SP1 (Spatial Strategy), DM2
(Design Quality for New Development) and DM12 (Landscape, Seascape,
Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the Island Plan Core
Strategy.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in
complete accordance
with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbered below,
except where varied by any other conditions of this permission.
KC.164/8 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the
satisfactory implementation of the development in accordance with
the aims of policy DM2 Design Quality for New Development of the
Island Plan Core Strategy.
3 The use of the mobile home hereby permitted and shown in the
approximate
position on drawing number KC. 164/8 and the residential
curtilage agreed in accordance with condition 5 shall be limited to
Mr and Mrs N. Payne and any dependents only. When Mr and Mrs Payne
cease to occupy the premises as a residence the mobile home shall
be permanently removed from the site and the agreed curtilage shall
be returned to its former use. Reason: The site is located in an
area where new dwellings are not normally permitted except where
there is an overriding need in the interests of agriculture,
forestry or other rural businesses, because the application has
been assessed on the basis of the unique business circumstances of
the applicants business and to comply with the advice contained
within the NPPF and the requirements of policy SP1 (Spatial
Strategy) of the Island Plan Core Strategy.
4 Within two months of the date of this decision, details of a
landscaping scheme for
the north and north eastern boundaries of the site shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The details shall include, a planting plan, schedules of plants
noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/ densities
together with an associated maintenance schedule for a minimum
period of 5 years. The approved details shall be carried out in
accordance with the agreed schemes within six months of the date of
written confirmation from the Local Planning Authority and shall be
retained thereafter.
-
Reason: To ensure a suitable level of screening is retained at
the site, to protect and maintain the rural character and
appearance of the area and to comply with the requirements of
policies DM2 (Design Quality for New Development) and DM12
(Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the Island
Plan Core Strategy.
5 Within two months of the date of this decision, details of the
extent of residential
curtilage to be used in connection with the temporary
residential use hereby approved shall be submitted to and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the use of
the land as residential curtilage shall cease within three years of
the date of this decision or two months of Mr and Mrs Payne ceasing
to occupy the mobile home, whichever is the sooner. Reason: To
protect and maintain the rural character and appearance of the area
and to comply with the requirements of policies DM2 (Design Quality
for New Development) and DM12 (Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity
and Geodiversity) of the Island Plan Core Strategy.
6 Within two months of the date of this decision a visibility
splay of 2.4m x 101m to
the east of the vehicular access to the site shall be
implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to
and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and
shall be retained thereafter. Nothing that may cause an obstruction
to visibility shall at any time be placed or be permitted to remain
within the visibility splay. Reason: In the interests of highway
safety and to comply with the requirements of policy DM2 (Design
Quality for New Development) of the Island Plan Core Strategy.
7 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country
Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no
development within Classes A to E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2
of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out. Reason: To
protect the undeveloped character of the area and to comply with
policies DM2 (Design Quality for New Development), DM11 (Historic
and Built Environment) and DM12 (Landscape, Seascape, Biodiversity
and Geodiversity) of the Island Plan Core Strategy.