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.