www.planningportal.gov.

uk/planninginspectorate



Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 6 November 2013
Site visit made on 6 November 2013
by Sukie Tamplin Dip TP Pg Dip Arch Cons IHBC MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 22 November 2013

Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/A/13/2199921
West Wight Alpacas, Main Road, Wellow, Isle of Wight, PO41 0SZ
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by West Wight Alpacas against the decision of the Isle of Wight
Council.
The application Ref P/01784/12-TCP/30601/J, dated 21 November 2012, was refused
by notice dated 21 February 2013.
The development proposed is temporary consent (3 years) for agricultural workers
caravan.
Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal.
Procedural matters
2. The appellants holding at Wellow originally had a site area of 7 acres. But,
since the application was refused, about 20 acres more have been purchased
and most of this land would be used in connection with the alpaca enterprise.
It is only appropriate to take these changed circumstances into account if no
party would be disadvantaged. In Wheatcroft (Bernard) Ltd v Secretary of
State for the Environment [1982] JPL 37, it was held that the main criterion is
whether the development is so changed by such amendments that to grant
permission would be to deprive those who should have been consulted of the
opportunity of consultation.
3. The additional land is a matter of fact, and both the Council and other
interested parties are aware of its extent and location. Moreover there was an
opportunity to make representations both in written form and at the Hearing.
Thus I consider that the additional land can be taken into account without
prejudice to interested parties and I have done so in this decision.
Main issue
4. Whether or not the needs of the alpaca enterprise outweigh the aims of policies
seeking to limit development to defined settlements.
Background
5. In 2011, the appellants set up West Wight Alpacas and bought in animals to
the 7 acre site that had been purchased in the hamlet of Wellow. Further
animals were kept on two areas of rented land at Norton (6 acres) and
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
Cranmore (21 acres)
1
. These additional fields were also used for hay cropping.
At the time of the purchase there was a barn on the appeal site but no other
buildings.
6. The appellants rented a house, for a few months, in the hamlet of Thorley
which lies about 1km to the west, before moving onto the site later in 2011.
By 2013 a new barn had been erected
2
and alterations and extensions made to
the existing barn to form a store and workshop
3
. This latter building is now
used as a shop and caf and was constructed and converted with the aid of
grants and loans
4
. Two caravans have also been moved onto the land. The
first of these has a lawful development certificate for use as a site office and
staff rest room
5
. The second is occupied by the appellants and their children
and is the caravan subject of this appeal. Alterations to the access were
permitted in January 2012
6
and a large parking area has been constructed.
7. During the two years since 2011 the herd has grown to 42, and the appellants
are specialising in the Suri breed, primarily raised for blood stock. In addition,
the appellants run the on-site shop and caf and are developing a linked
tourism business of alpaca walks and treks.
8. The land is subdivided by fencing into a series of paddocks, which
accommodate groups of alpacas. The paddock closest to the caravan contains
the breeding females and their crias (young alpacas) while other animals which
are considered to be less vulnerable are kept in the remaining paddocks.
These currently include the animals used for trekking.
Reasons
Development plan context
9. The aim of Policy SP1 of The Isle of Wight Council Core Strategy March 2012
(CS) is to concentrate development within or immediately adjacent to defined
settlement boundaries of Key Regeneration Areas, Smaller Regeneration Areas
and Rural Service Centres. Unless a specific local need is identified,
development proposals outside of, or not immediately adjacent to, defined
settlements will not be supported and it is common ground that Wellow is not a
defined settlement. The supporting text
7
says that local needs includes local
requirements for housing, a demonstrable contribution to maintaining local
facilities such as schools, shops and community facilities, and development that
maintains or enhances the viability of local communities.
10. Though the appellants say that they have a local housing need this is in respect
of the particular agricultural enterprise rather than the needs of the locality.
Furthermore, it was confirmed by the Parish Council that consultations were
well underway into the possible provision of up to 2 specified rural housing

1
By the time of the hearing the area of rented land had changed and comprised 7 acres at Norton, 3 acres
elsewhere in Wellow and 1 acre at Cranmore.
2
Planning permission ref P/01555/11 permitted a barn and covered area with solar panels on southern roof slope
in December 2011
3
Planning permission ref P/00822/11 permitted alteration and extension of existing barn to form store and
workshop in August 2011
4
Planning permission ref P/01713/12 permitted the change of use of the agricultural barn and workshop permitted
by P/00822/11 to form a farm shop. This permission also authorised the parking area
5
Lawful Development Certificate for proposed agricultural office, rest room, shelter and wash room, August 2011
6
Planning permission ref P/01460/11 permitted the retention and completion of works to alter vehicular access,
formation of concrete apron, gravel drive and hard standing.
7
The Isle of Wight Council Core Strategy paragraph 5.31
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
exceptions sites in the locality and that these would meet the identified local
need in the Parish. I thus find the claim that the proposal would meet a local
need, as opposed to a specific need in respect of the holding, lacks cogency.
Neither were arguments advanced that the proposal would enhance the
viability of local communities or maintain local facilities. Thus I do not find
support for the proposal in the development plan.
Essential on-site presence
11. Because there is no specific policy in the development plan in respect of the
need for on-site rural workers, it is appropriate to consider the relevant
Government guidance. In such circumstances, and in accordance with
paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework),
permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
8

12. Paragraph 55 of the Framework says that new isolated homes in the
countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as
the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place
of work in the countryside. Although the appeal site is in a hamlet, this is
regarded as the wider rural area in the CS and therefore for the purposes of
Government policy the proposal can properly be regarded as an application for
an isolated dwelling.
13. Although the tests set out in PPS7
9
have now been superseded by the
Framework, the statements of both the parties have sought to demonstrate
whether or not there is an essential need by reference to those former
functional and financial tests. I consider that this approach does provide an
objective, systematic and methodical way of deciding whether or not the need
is essential. Essential is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as absolutely
necessary, indispensable. Consequently, for the purposes of my decision, I
shall first assess whether it is absolutely necessary to have an on-site presence
to avoid unacceptable risk to the enterprise or, in other words, if there is a
functional need which amounts to special circumstances.
14. The animals at West Wight Alpacas in November 2013 comprised 24 breeding
Suri female, 4 Huacaya female, 2 stud males, 1 retired stud male and 11 males
used for walking. Of these, the appellants agreed that only the pregnant
females and their cria are vulnerable in terms of the need for regular
supervision. The appellants also keep some poultry but said that this is not
part of their core business and is scarcely economic.
15. There is no doubt that the appellants have worked hard to develop the alpaca
business and their animals look well cared for. They clearly have an ambition
to develop high quality animals with unusual colouring and to this end have
invested in a part share of 6 stud males which are currently kept on another
alpaca farm in East Sussex. Three of these animals will eventually be kept at
Wellow, though I understand they will travel backwards and forwards between

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

Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4
the island and the mainland to enable breeding and thus will not be at Wellow
all the time.
16. Evidence on the need for a permanent on-site presence was contradictory. The
appellants specialist vet said, on the one hand, that it was essential to have
constant supervision because the health of alpacas can rapidly decline. She
also said that the gestation time for the breeding females can vary widely, from
330 days to 370 days. Therefore it is difficult to predict when birthing will take
place and this is a particularly vulnerable time, as is the first 24 hours of a
newborn cria. The appellants said that although supervision was particularly
necessary at each birth, an on site presence is also required at other times
because of the need, for example, to bottle feed some of the crias.
17. On the other hand, guidance from the British Alpaca Society (BAS) relied on by
the Council and objectors says that alpacas are hardy healthy animals and, as
with all livestock, they should be checked at least once a day, preferably twice.
The guidance also says that alpacas usually give little indication that they are
feeling unwell until they are very sick. Early indications may include loss of
appetite, spending more time lying around and not keeping up with the herd.
Getting to know the individuals in a herd helps ensure problems can be
detected and dealt with at an early stage, but even with on-site presence it
appears that some premature deaths are almost inevitable because of the
ability of the animals to cover up visible signs of ill health. Although it was
suggested that the BAS guidance is aimed at hobby owners rather than serious
breeders I do not find this a cogent view because this is a national
organisation, dedicated to the welfare of alpacas. Moreover the appellants and
other breeders are registered with the society and I consider that the guidance
of the BAS should be given significant weight.
18. It was agreed that most animals give birth by early afternoon and the
appellants confirmed that at West Wight Alpacas the latest time they had had a
birth was at 18.30hrs which could be regarded as at the end of the working
day. The BAS recommends that animals should be mated to ensure that the
birth of the crias takes place in late spring or early summer and because
alpacas are induced ovulaters, there is some control over the timing. But
although the appellants agreed that this would be ideal timing it is, they said,
not possible to group the birthing because not all females become pregnant the
first time they are mated. Therefore, because pregnancy lasts about 11
months there is slippage each year in terms of the month of birth and this
extends the breeding season and thus the need for close supervision over
several months.
19. Nevertheless, it seems to me, there is potential for significant control over the
birthing. An alpaca can be kept empty if early attempts at breeding are
unsuccessful. The recent purchase of more stud males was instrumental in the
appellants choosing to do just that, because it ensured that females would be
available for mating with the new males at a particular time. Trials of embryo
transfer have taken place at Wellow and although these have not been
successful this year, such intervention also indicates control over the timing of
breeding. The appellants also said that shearing, which normally takes place
before the onset of hot weather, is very stressful for the animals and thus
should not take place while the animals are pregnant. I heard that females can
delay giving birth if the weather is inclement. Thus planning for birth to take
place in the months recommended by BAS appears to have several advantages
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5
in terms of animal husbandry, as the cria would be born at the optimum time
and shearing of adult females could take place after birth. It seems to me that
exercising control over breeding should be within the power of the appellants,
although they say that it would harm the viability of the enterprise. I shall
come back to this point later in my decision.
20. The appellants also said that an on-site presence is essential because of other
incidents and also because of the high value of the animals. One incident was
reported of a stud male getting his head stuck in fencing and others of animals
getting caught in the wrappings of hay bales. But the appellants clearly know
the individual animals, as is recommended by the BAS, and acknowledged that
the particular stud male, which got stuck, is uncharacteristically curious and
thus such incidents can be avoided by taking precautionary action.
21. I accept that alpacas are valuable animals and the Suri breed, which are the
core of the West Wight enterprise, have been assigned a high value by an
independent assessor. But judging from the sale of animals to date, which I
heard were of lower value Huacaya animals, the value of the animals is not
significantly different to the suggested value of a dairy cow, a comparison
provided by a local farmer. Neither do the projections for the sale values of
the rarer Suri alpacas indicate that the price is expected to be much greater in
the future. Nor is there evidence that there is loss through animal rustling. In
terms of security it seems to me that the movement of the animals would be
difficult and a disincentive to theft because the animals are a rare breed, of non
standard colouring, and kept on an island. I was provided with no evidence
that security has been an issue even when there was no-one living on site and
the animals are not insured. Hence I consider that an on-site dwelling is not
essential for security purposes.
22. But even if I conclude that supervision is required for animal welfare reasons, it
is appropriate to consider whether such need could be met by a worker living
on the appeal site during the relevant controlled breeding season. The
appellants say that this would not be feasible because the breeding season is
so long. But a short breeding season is recommended by the BAS and it does
appear that there is significant control over this factor. Evidence was given
that night-time births are unusual, and none has occurred on this holding.
Hence, because most care needs can be met during the day and the breeding
season can be shortened, I consider it is unlikely that the welfare of the
animals would suffer if a worker is on site overnight during the planned
breeding season only.
23. Moreover, closer supervision could be provided by an existing property
elsewhere in the locality, particularly as there are other dwellings close by. My
attention was drawn to appeal decisions submitted by the appellant where the
Inspector had accepted that alternative accommodation would only be feasible
if such accommodation is within sight and sound of the animals and not more
than 500m distant. I do not know the details of these other cases, but from
what I have seen I do not consider the situations are comparable to that before
me. None of the appeal decisions relied upon was in the locality and only one
has been decided since the publication of the Framework. In that case
10
,
because of the appellants particular personal circumstances, there appeared to
be no other realistic alternative to an on-site caravan.

10
Appeal ref APP/P1133/A/12/2188539
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6
24. The Council provided an example of an available property 600m to the west of
the appeal site, and residents said that several properties had come up for sale
within the hamlet of Wellow. This latter included a house located immediately
adjacent to the appeal site. This evidence was not challenged by the
appellants, and therefore it seems to me that alternative accommodation has
been, and probably is likely to become, available in a location that would
facilitate close supervision of the alpaca herd.
25. The appellants said that the enterprise would not be able to fund either the
purchase or the rental of an off-site house, but the evidence suggested that
other sources of income may be available. The appellants have funded West
Wight Alpacas from a variety of sources, including a loan from the Isle of Wight
lottery, grants from Government business start up funds and also by
participating in apprenticeship schemes.
26. However the appellants have also used their own private funds and have other
business interests. I acknowledge that this does not undermine their intentions
in the long term to have a self financing business. But, because major parts of
the business including the costs of new stud stock and the additional land, have
been funded by their other income streams I am not convinced that the
purchase or rental of existing accommodation close to the appeal site is not
feasible. I also accept that the acquisition of adjacent land was a unique
opportunity, but this additional land is not, based on the appellants own
business plan, essential to the business targets. In such circumstances, the
picture presented by appellants is that they have not taken up opportunities for
off-site housing because they would prefer to live on site. This does not
demonstrate that funding priority has been given to obtaining accessible living
accommodation and undermines the claim that living on-site is essential.
27. It seems to me, on balance, that the special circumstances required by the
Framework in terms of an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently
on site to ensure the welfare of the alpacas have not been demonstrated.
Accordingly, I consider that a constant on-site presence would not be justified.
Permanence
28. In order to assess the sustainability of the proposed development in this rural
location it is appropriate to assess the permanence or long-term viability of the
alpaca enterprise. Whilst the application is for a temporary period, this needs
to be assessed in the same manner as an application for a permanent dwelling
with appropriate allowance for start up costs and reduced profitability in the
early years. For this purpose the submitted financial evidence is pertinent.
29. As to evidence of investment into the business, the building now used as the
caf/shop has been constructed together with another barn and significant
ground-works. There has also been investment in the purchase of high quality
new stock including a part share in stud males brought in from America. Thus
there is a commitment to building up the business and the purchase of the
additional land has ensured that there is sufficient pasture on this holding,
thereby reducing the reliance on rented land, for the target herd of 70 alpacas.
All of these factors demonstrate a long term commitment and weigh in favour
of permission.
30. A copy of the abbreviated accounts was provided at the Hearing but such
evidence is broad brush and does not give a clear outline of the business.
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7
Consequently, the business plan is more helpful in providing information about
the business as a whole. The appellants evidence confirms that the actual
takings for the shop/caf and alpaca trekking over the summer months of 2013
were less than had been projected, but in general it is clear that this part of the
business is very significant in terms of the viability of the enterprise as a whole.
The wool from the fleeces raises about 8000 per year and thus part of the
shop income is directly attributable to the proceeds arising from the
agricultural holding. However, it appears the other stock and the caf
refreshments are bought-in. Thus the appellants agreed, based on the 2013
projections, that about 15% of the total income of the enterprise is from the
on-site breeding and stud alpacas and the wool from their fleeces. They also
agreed that the trekking alpacas do not require close supervision and these
are, at times, kept on other rented land.
31. In 2013 the funding of the enterprise was heavily subsidised by the appellants
and only a small profit is shown, but this is not unusual in a business start up.
By 2015 the projections show a profit of 26,040. This is based on the sale of
14 alpacas, and an increase in stud services. But because the total number of
alpacas is shown only to have increased by 3 the wool income is unlikely to be
significantly more than in 2013. Consequently, the proportion of the total
income from the animals that are said to require close supervision would be
about 32%. Accordingly the viability of the enterprise appears to depend more
on the caf and shop rather than the breeding of alpacas. Thus, it seems to
me, that exercising control over the breeding season would not harm the
viability of the business as a whole. The caf and shop rely, to a considerable
extent, on bought-in goods and would not, in the terms of the Framework,
generate an essential need for a rural worker to live on or near the appeal site.
32. Furthermore, as the Council say, the figures in the business plan do not include
reasonable takings by the appellants in terms of a wage commensurate with
their role in the enterprise. Nor do they include all the costs and expenditure
which are part of the business, such as some vet expenditure and the embryo
transfer process in particular. This appears to be an important part of the
progression towards raising the quality of the blood stock, which is said to be
the core of the alpaca business. Neither do the business plan expenses include
payment for knitting at a market rate, other wages, rental of land, the
purchase of the adjacent land for 240,000, or any allowance for depreciation.
Thus even if the shop stock in hand is added to the profit shown for Year 4, it
does not seem to me that the enterprise as a whole would be self financing.
Hence I find that even by 2016, the viability of West Wight Alpacas, whether
based on the income directly from agricultural operations on the holding, or on
all parts of the business considered together, would be at best marginal.
33. Based on the evidence before me, I conclude that the business plan does not
reflect the true costs of the enterprise and thus over-estimates the likely profit
to be generated. Although there has been significant investment in land,
buildings and stock, and this demonstrates commitment, there does not appear
to be a reasonable likelihood that the business would be viable by the end of
the 3 year period and at that time the temporary consent, if permitted, would
lapse. In these circumstances, Circular 11/95 Use of conditions in planning
permission
11
, advises that a second temporary permission should not normally
be permitted. Neither does it seem likely the enterprise would be able to afford

11
Paragraph 112 Circular 11/95 Use of conditions in planning permission
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8
the construction of a permanent dwelling once the temporary consent has
lapsed.
Conclusions
34. Accordingly, although I acknowledge that the enterprise appears well run and
there is clear evidence of investment in the land, buildings and animals, I have
found, for the reasons I have given, that there is no demonstrable essential
need for a rural worker to live on-site all year round. I thus conclude that
there is insufficient agricultural justification, or essential and permanent need
to justify the siting of a temporary dwelling in the countryside. Neither is the
business, and in particular the agricultural element of it, likely to be financially
sustainable within 3 years. Hence the essential ongoing needs of the alpaca
enterprise do not outweigh the aims of policies seeking to limit development to
defined settlements.
35. I have taken account of the support of the Isle of Wight branch of the National
Farmers Union, and the confidence shown by other organisations that have
given grants and loans to the business. But this support does not outweigh my
conclusion that not only would the development conflict with the aims of
CS Policy SP1, but it would also not meet the guidance in the Framework that
says special circumstances are required to justify an isolated dwelling in the
countryside. For these reasons an on-site caravan would significantly and
demonstrably harm the aims of sustainable development policies. Therefore
the appeal is dismissed.
Sukie Tamplin
INSPECTOR
Appeal Decision APP/P2114/A/13/2199921


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANTS:
David Long BA (Hons) P & D,
MA RTPI
Christopher Scott Ltd, Planning and Development
Claire E Whitehead BVM&S MS
FHEA MRCVS Diplomate ACVIM
(Large Animal)
(Part Hearing by conference
call)
Camelid Veterinary Services Ltd
Michelle Payne Appellant in person
Neil Payne Appellant in person

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Russell Chick Principal Planning Officer

INTERESTED PERSONS:
Pam Broadhead Chair, Shalfleet Parish Council
John Heather Isle of Wight Branch, National Farmers Union
Fiona Grist Isle of Wight Lottery
Bob and Sandie Denman Local residents
David and Sandy Walter Local residents
Steve and Jill Cawley Local residents

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING
1 Letter on behalf of Camelid Veterinary Services Ltd dated
3 November 2013 submitted by the appellants
2 Abbreviated Accounts and Report of the Directors for the period
4 February 2011-31 March 2012 submitted by the appellants
3 Excerpt from The Farm Management Pocket Book (Nix) submitted
by the Council.