Application Number: WD/D/17/002460 Full

Registration Date: 9 October, 2017

Application Site: LAND AT HIGHER KINGSTON RUSSELL, KINGSTON RUSSEL FARM ROAD PAST, KINGSTON RUSSELL

Proposal: Erection of a Temporary Agricultural Workers Dwelling, an Agricultural Barn and Field Shelter and Use of Existing Equestrian Training Area as a Riding School.

Applicant: Mrs Hardiman

Ward Members: Cllr J Russell

Case Officer: Hamish Laird

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve subject to conditions.

1.2 UPDATE TO COMMITTEE REPORT OF 22 MARCH, 2018

1.3 At the 22 March, 2018, Meeting of the Planning Committee, Members resolved to defer consideration of the application pending the submission of further information on the viability of the business.

 The text of the original Committee Report is attached below as Appendix A.  The Report received from the Council's Agricultural Consultant, dated June, 2018, is attached as Appendix B.

1.4 Officers commissioned a further Report relating to the financial and functional need for a dwelling on site to serve the development comprising the breeding and rearing of Alpacas; associated Alpaca activities such as Alpaca walks, public visits; and, the operation of an 'adopt an Alpaca' scheme; and, in relation to the secondary operation on site of a Riding School with a string of 7 ponies.

1.5 The Report received from the Council's Agricultural Consultant is attached as Appendix B. Further confidential financial information has been submitted by the applicant, and this has been incorporated into the Council's Agricultural Consultants Report.

1.6 The Council's Agricultural Consultants Report corroborates the findings from the Report submitted on behalf of the Council by Reading Agricultural Consultants. In this new Report the author advises that with the Alpaca animal management, additional work on Alpaca experiences; the riding lessons; and, summer camp-site, then work involved to run the business as a whole would be a full-time requirement.

1.7 The new information shows that they are forecasting reaching a sustainable level by years 5 and 6. (2022/23 and 2023/24). This seems more realistic than expecting this to be achieved within 3 years; and, by the year 2023/24 (year 6) the predicted gross margin for the alpacas is £19,177. Which the Council's Consultant does not see as being unrealistic.

1.8 With regard to the Riding School, some doubts as to whether the predicted income is achievable from the riding school enterprise but this will very much depend upon how the enterprise is marketed and run. This is predicted to achieve a gross income of £35,100 pa and after expenditure (excluding fixed costs) a gross margin of £29,355 pa). However, lessons could not be sustained on Monday and Wednesday afternoons after school in the winter - it will be dark - but there is every possibility that the 12 spaces available on a Saturday would be filled once the site is established.

1.9 The Council's Consultant advises that the budget accounts show by year 5 and 6 the net farm income is predicted to be just under £40,000 pa.

In summary the Consultant found that:

For the budgeting purposes the figures, shown for alpaca sales, were reasonable. I remain concerned that the riding school will not generate the returns expected but the applicant has satisfactorily described her business plan. The fixed costs have allowed for the rental arrangement to continue. The business is forecast to reach a sustainable financial level by year 5 and 6.

1.10 On this proposed net farm income and the evidence provided to satisfy that the financial test has been met for this start up business, the Consultant concludes his Report advising: "I am satisfied in reappraising this application that there is sufficient justification to support the functional need for on-site accommodation. The financial budgeting for this application for a temporary dwelling is appropriately set".

Amendments to the application 1.11 The applicant has amended the application to include a toilet facility to be attached to the north side of the 3-bay field shelter which sits immediately to the west of the horse exercise arena. This is a requirement for the operation of the Riding School. Officers consider that the small scale nature of this extension; and, its positioning on the north side of the 3-bay field shelter, away from any adjoining residential properties will result in a minimal visual impact on the character of the site and surroundings.

1.12 Any further comments received in respect of the revised plans will be reported.

Conclusion 1.13 The siting of the mobile home, agricultural building, field shelter and extension to the existing stable block are acceptable in respect of their impacts on the character ad appearance of the site and surroundings; openness and character of the AONB; traffic movements to and from the site are considered to be acceptable in terms of highways safety.

1.14 In respect of the functional and financial tests, it is clear that a longer term time horizon than the temporary 3-years consent sought for the mobile home by this application is required in order to establish the Alpaca and Riding School businesses on the site, and for them to become profitable. In granting a 3-year temporary period, at the end of that time the applicant will have to demonstrate that the business is progressing according to plan via the submission of a further application. This application would be to extend the time limit on the mobile home for a further 3-years and will need to be considered accordingly. The submission of any application to renew the time limit for the mobile home will provide Members, statutory consultees, and members of the public, with an opportunity to evaluate progress, and to consider whether a further 3-year temporary permission is warranted

1.15 Any proposals for a permanent dwelling on the site would again need to be the subject of a further application which will need to be supported by evidence that the business is and continues to be profitable as well as taking into account any other considerations that are material at that time.

Recommendation - Approve subject to conditions 1.16 As per schedule of conditions attached to original Committee Report from 22 March, 2018.

Appendix A

Report to Planning Committee at 22 March, 2018, Planning Committee Meeting.

1. Summary Recommendation

1.1 Approve subject to conditions.

2. Description of development 2.1 The site comprises an open field divided into a number of paddocks which are sited to the east of Kingston Russell Farm, and to the north of the A35. The western site boundary is marked by hedging and a small wooded area between the site and the farmhouse. Mature hedging marks the northern and southern site boundaries, and the land is in a dip that falls from the western boundary into a shallow valley, and then rises gently towards the eastern site boundary. The site is presently grassland. 2 No. touring caravans are sited on the land and located adjacent to the western site boundary next to the wood. In addition, there is an existing arena area measuring approximately 33.0m wide x 40.0m long located close to the western site boundary, and a three bay stable building adjacent to its western side. At the time of the site visit, it was noted that black plastic coated, silage bales are also stored on part of the site. The site area amounts to approximately 6.50 hectares.

2.2 The site lies in open countryside outside any Defined Development Boundary (DDB), and within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the South Dorset Downs Landscape Character Area.

2.3 The proposed mobile home is a single storey, twin-unit dwelling that measures approximately 6.5m wide x 19.6m long (wall-to-wall). This equates to a floor area of 127.4 sq. m. A 2.5m wide deck running the length of the cabin is proposed to be attached to the rear (south-west facing) elevation at floor level. Eaves height is proposed to be 2.6m and 4.0m high to the ridge. A wooden, horizontal board, timber finish is proposed for the walls, whilst the roof is to be of profiled sheeting. The mobile unit will provide:

An entrance into a utility room/wetroom; family bathroom; kitchen/dining/living area; and, 3 bedrooms, with one being the master bedroom with en-suite shower room and w/c.

2.4 The dwelling is to be sited to the west of the proposed new agricultural building, and adjacent to the entrance track to the site that leads from the public highway to the west at Kingston Russell Farm. This location will provide observation of the sites vehicular access, and the land holding and buildings on the site.

2.5 The agricultural building measures approximately: 21.m long x 11.0m wide x 3.63m to the eaves and 5.2m to the ridge. The walls and roof are proposed to be of profiled sheeting. A set of double opening doors is proposed to be inserted in each end elevation, and the building will be daylit via rooflights - 5 No. in each roof-slope inserted at intervals.

2.6 The field shelter measures approximately 8.0m x 4.0m with a shallow pitched roof 3.3m above ground at the apex. It is open on 2 sides - to the front and one side elevation.

3. Main planning issues  Principle of development  Scale, design and visual impact  Residential amenity  Highway safety  Flood risk and drainage

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Long Bredy and Kingston Russell Parish Council WD/D/17/002460 – Response to the consultation The Parish Council have considered this application. They are aware that the application has caused concern with several residents and is also aware that the residents have raised these concerns with the planning authority. The council have heard representations from a number of parties opposed to the application and from the applicant. The council have taken into account the views expressed by all parties. The Parish Council strongly object to the application on the following grounds: 1. There appear to be material inaccuracies in the application form and covering letter and this undermines the overall integrity of the application. The inadequacies of the proposal are too many, from waste management, start of building, trees in neighbouring land and that the temporary accommodation should be at least 5 metres from a boundary which it is clearly not on their drawings. 2. The construction of an agricultural building and temporary accommodation are a significant change of use from a private riding facility to a public facility. 3. Access to the site is a significant concern. The road is single track with limited or no passing places. The development and change of use will significantly increase the volume of traffic and this will present inconvenience and potential dangers to other residents and road users. This junction with the A35 is a difficult and dangerous access point. 4. The assertion that the development is not visible to the public is incorrect. The development will be seen from the McMillan Way, The A35, footpaths and by other residents. 5. The development is in an AONB and its location is not suitable for such an undertaking. 6. This plot is 6.5 hectares / 16 acres, it is not enough for a sufficient agricultural business, requiring accommodation. The Parish Council object to the development of a dwelling on a small holding. As an AONB it would be blighted if wooden chalets were dotted on every small plot, there are quite a few plots of equal size in the parish. 7. There are concerns that increased run off will present an increased flooding risk. 8. The development of Alpaca breading is an underpinning factor in the application. The council are not convinced that there is evidence that supports the need for a full time on site worker to tend to these animals, which we understand only give birth during daylight hours. 9. The council are concerned that the development will adversely affect access rights to neighbours. Neighbours are concerned about the impact of the development on their water supplies. While we understand the applicant intends to drill a new borehole this in itself could affect the water supply to others and requires professional assessment of its potential impact.

Highway Authority 4.2 Has made no comments on the application.

5. Other consultations 5.1 WDDC Environmental Health – has no comments regarding contaminated land.

5.2 Natural England: No objection - NE comments as follows: “Natural England’s only comment on this application is that the in-field structures could be moved closer to the trees to the west of the application area in order to reduce the visual impact of said structures (barn and field shelter). This would be to prevent further visual ‘clutter’ in the AONB.”

5.3 Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) – The Council has sought advice from RAC regarding the requirement for the dwelling in relation to the functional and financial aspects of the proposal. In a letter dated 22 December, 2017, RAC advises that it has examined the submitted information - the salient points are.

“Essential Need 1. The main part of this farming operation will involve the management and rearing of breeding alpacas and the need, or otherwise, to live on site for these stock has been examined at numerous planning appeals in the past. Although there have been a few decisions that dismiss the need to live on site, the majority accept that in order to farm alpacas properly - at a commercial scale - it is necessary to live close to the animals to ensure their well-being. Specific issues are known to include:  Mating - alpaca mating is an intricate, managed process and not as straight forward as other conventional farm animals. Specifically, the animals are induced ovulators and do not display "normal heat" activity. In order to ensure that fertilisation occurs at the right time it is necessary to:  plan carefully and make appropriate preparations;  put the male in one pen and the female in an adjoining pen and observe the level of interest;  observe and possibly assist with mating;  remove the female post mating;  repeat for the following 2-3 days to ensure fertilisation has occurred;  Abortions and still-births can be caused due to stress-related factors from 30 days after conception and a presence on site to identify problems and reduce stress is important;  Birth - alpacas have a peculiar gestation insofar as there is no closely-defined gestation period: the quoted period is 330 days ± 30days. Such irregular gestation periods it difficult to predict the timing of the birth with any accuracy and if assistance is required at parturition this would only be apparent if the animal was observed to be in difficulty; living on site would mean the likelihood of spotting such a difficulty would be considerably higher, than if living off site;  Rearing - lack of milk - including colostrum - following the birth is not uncommon and can require artificial rearing. This is a time- consuming activity that requires 2-hourly feeds day and night for the first two weeks; 3-hourly feeds to eight weeks; and 3-times- daily to four months;  Day-to-day management - simply looking after these animals on a regular, hands-on manner will help ensure that many health or welfare issues arising are spotted promptly and can be dealt with. As alpacas are prey animals in the wild they are notorious at hiding the symptoms of illness and close vigilance is required to spot subtle changes in behaviour. Travelling to the site periodically (especially at weekends, and during the long summer days) will inevitably mean the time spent watching the animals will be reduced and in such circumstance problems are more likely to develop, and animals will suffer.

2. In such circumstance - with up to 20 breeding females and their young in Year 3, stud and other males, I accept there is a need for someone to be on site at most times to ensure the proper functioning of the enterprise. 3. The seven ponies simply add the essential need for a worker to live on site, although they would not warrant the provision of on-site supervision alone. 4. Issues related to the security of the site are also of concern and add to the balance of factors that warrant an on-site presence. Theft and attempted theft of stock can, clearly, compromise the welfare and safety of the animals, and cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant. If the applicant was to live off site, there would be a risk of intruders and such risks must be seen as additional considerations in this application. 5. Finally, alpacas are valuable, by comparison to other farm stock, with a well-bred halter trained female worth between an average £2,000 and £3,000 and often more. Clearly, if one or more animals were injured or stolen the financial impact on the enterprise could be significant - and this issue has also been a consideration in appeal decisions. It is also relevant to note that the applicant will be training alpacas to “walk to halter” and as such can be readily caught, haltered, and “walked away”. 6. Fundamentally, I consider it to be neither responsible nor practical to establish a commercial alpaca breeding unit - with ponies - without living on site to care for the stock.”

Financial sustainability

7. Budgets have been prepared that set out the likely, or forecast, profitability of the unit. Whilst many of the figures cannot be compared against standard data I have reviewed the figures and consider them a reasonable estimate of likely income and costs (albeit there are a few arithmetic errors – which will explain why figures I quote below may differ from those in the appraisal). 8. However, the plan as proposed does not forecast that the alpaca business will generate a trading profit by Year 3. In fact, the figures predict falling profitability (rising negative trading) in the three years, with all the “profit” being stored up in the increasing stock numbers (and hence valuations) on the holding. The figures for the alpacas show: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Alpaca Profit + Loss -£1,492 -£2,937 -£5,013

and, this does not inspire general confidence in the business plan. 9. If the change in stock valuation is taken into account – which, I accept, is an entirely appropriate procedure for the preparation of taxation accounts - the profitability is more robust: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Alpaca Profit + Loss -£1,492 -£2,937 -£5,013 Valuation change £6,250 £7,295 £16,566 Alpaca Gross Margin £4,758 £4,358 £11,553

10. But, the alpaca business alone – which generates the functional need for a worker to live on the holding – is not sufficiently profitable to its own right to demonstrate that it is viable and sustainable (£11,553 does not cover the fixed costs including a return to labour). 11. Planning Inspectors have determined that where an essential functional need is proved that that element of the business plan must be viable in its own right, rather than being “propped” up by some other element of the overall business plan. This position was held in the called-in decision of Honeycrock Farm (“Fidler”)where the Secretary of State determined: APP/L3625/A/14/2220464: Honeycrock Farm, Axes Lane, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 5QL “Taking account of the Inspector’s arguments at IR22-28, the Secretary of State agrees with him at IR29 that it is the agricultural element of the business, and specifically the beef cattle herd operation, that gives rise to the need for a 24-hour presence and which must therefore be shown to be financially sustainable in order to demonstrate the need for such a continuing permanent presence on site…”.

27. In this instance, there are also the ponies. When the profits from this part of the overall business are added to alpaca figures, the overall business plan looks considerably more robust:

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Alpaca Profit + Loss -£1,492 -£2,937 -£5,013 Valuation change £6,250 £7,295 £16,566 Alpaca Gross Margin £4,758 £4,358 £11,553 Ponies £29,955 £29,955 £29,955 Business Gross Margin £34,713 £34,313 £41,508 Fixed Costs £5,290 £5,290 £5,290 Business Profit £29,423 £29,023 £36,218

28. However, the ponies of themselves do not generate an essential functional need for worker to live on the holding, though they do add to it. In the called-in decision above, Honeycrock Farm was a large holding with arable and beef enterprises, and also forestry – and the SoS determined that the beef enterprise (that alone generated any essential functional need) had to be sustainable in its own right. In this instance, both elements (alpacas and ponies) contribute to the essential need test, albeit the alpacas are the dominant enterprise in terms of functional need and the ponies are more “make-weight”. In the called-in decision above, Honeycrock Farm was a large holding with arable and beef enterprises, and also forestry – and the SoS determined that the beef enterprise (that alone generated any essential functional need) had to be sustainable in its own right. In this instance, both elements (alpacas and ponies) contribute to the essential need test, albeit the alpacas are the dominant enterprise in terms of functional need and the ponies are more “make-weight”. 29 The question that needs to be determined is whether the combined profits of alpacas plus ponies should be considered (alongside the issue of stock valuation). In an appeal decision in Malvern Hills the Inspector considered this issue at length and determined: “The appellants’ overall proposal is to develop an agricultural holding with alpacas, poultry and pigs, with free-range eggs and pork being sold locally. It also includes breeding of miniature Mediterranean donkeys for sale as pets. This latter element has not been included in projected budgets, since it may well not be recognised as an agricultural activity. Nevertheless, the income from the alpaca element of the business by year 4 would amount to slightly less than 60% of the total income. There was discussion about whether the need for a temporary worker’s dwelling should be assessed in the light of the financial viability of alpaca element on its own, or whether the other elements of the business – which did not justify the need for a dwelling – should also be taken into account. Looking at the criterion in NPPF paragraph 55, there is a requirement solely that there should be an essential need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Annex G to the SWDP then has a criterion that the enterprise should be planned on a sound financial basis. However, I take this to mean the enterprise as whole. Nevertheless, it is readily possible to imagine a situation where the element requiring a full-time presence was so small that it contributed a negligible amount of income to an enterprise, but might be used as a pretext to justify a dwelling. 2 APP/J1860/C/16/3164136: Land at Strensham Road, Naunton, WR8 0QA I saw the appellants’ existing herd of some 24 alpacas – both adult and cria - on their rented field on the edge of Twyning. The herd has been developed over 2 or 3 years, and it is clear that the appellants already have considerable experience of keeping these animals. It is apparent that this is much more than a speculative project, and shows a firm intention to develop the enterprise. Furthermore, given the significant proportion of income predicted for the alpaca element, I consider that, as a matter of fact and degree, it is reasonable to take account of the entire enterprise. It was queried as to whether the appellants had taken advantage of subsidies available for their land. It was confirmed that, given the relatively small amount involved, the subsidy had not been taken up. Overall, I am satisfied that there is a clear functional need for a temporary worker’s dwelling, and that the enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis.

30. Clearly, a final determination on this application vests with the Council, and there are anomalies in the financial data presented that require further consideration. However, I note:  the alpacas generate an essential need for a worker;  the horses contribute to that need;  the combined business is planned on a sound financial basis and should generate a profit sufficient to provide an appropriate return on the input deployed;  the alpaca enterprise should generate a paper profit by Year 3 but not a trading profit.” RAC also noted that there were no suitable alternative units of accommodation available in the area for sale or to rent that were suitable in providing the essential and functional need that would be derived from a mobile home on site.

Further comments were received on 13 February, 2018, from RAC following clarification of the anomalies noted in the financial data.

RAC has commented (in part):

31. “For the sake of clarification, I note that I am entirely content that there is an essential functional need for a worker to live on the holding to provide for the welfare needs of alpacas; I accept that the horses will generate an additional need. 32. I noted that budgets had previously been prepared that set out the likely, or forecast, profitability of the unit and that whilst many of the figures could not be compared against standard data, I considered them a reasonable estimate of likely income and costs. However, I also reported my concerns that the alpaca enterprise did not appear to be financially viable and that Planning Inspectors have determined that where an essential functional need had been shown that that element of the business plan must be viable in its own right, rather than being “propped” up by some other element of the overall business plan. 33. In response the applicant’s advisors have adjusted one of the key assumptions – namely, age to first cria – such that the herd size will increase more rapidly. This has been possible by taking on board the expectations of the applicant rather than ignoring them! “

Clearly noting that final determination rests with the Council, the RAC advisor is content that:  the alpacas generate an essential need for a worker;  the horses contribute to that need;  the combined business is planned on a sound financial basis and should generate a profit sufficient to provide an appropriate return on the inputs deployed;  the alpaca enterprise should generate a trading profit by Year 3 provided the applicant’s livestock management model is adopted.

6. Other representations 6.1 Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com.

Third Party Representations Nine letters of objection from six writers, two supported by photographs of the site plus a video clip of part of the site and surroundings following heavy rainfall, have been received. Correspondingly, 12 letters of support for the proposals have been received, including one from the site owner.

The objections are outlined as follows:

 Neighbours not notified;  No access to a water supply;  The proposal is inappropriate - adverse impact on character and openness of the Dorset AONB;  The need for single bedroom accommodation has not been demonstrated therefore, certainly not for a 3 bedroom property.  A 3-bedroom property is out of proportion to the number of employees;  Disagree with lack of any objection from Dorset CC – Highways – the route past the site is well used by commuters, school buses, HGV’s, pedestrians and horse riders; Residents consider present traffic flows to be unsustainable;  The development is unsustainable because the greenfield site will never be returned to its agricultural status;  Development has already commenced on site – a septic tank has been installed;  Impact on archaeological remains – 150m from tumuli;  The site is used exclusively for equine purposes – there is no agriculture carried out on site;  Horses are not agricultural animals and change of use of land from agriculture to equine use should be sought;  The applicant is not sufficiently qualified to operate a riding school;  The site is directly visible from the A35 and from the Macmillan Way Bridlepath;  The business case must be very dubious as the financial aspects are not open to public scrutiny;  Alpacas are not as expensive as they used to be – breeding females are now valued in the £100’s and only exceptional animals reach 4 figure sums;  Male Alpacas have negligible value, therefore, 50% of the cria will be effectively worthless;  No evidence that Alpacas are accepted as ‘agricultural’ animals;  If a herd of 30 Alpacas was established the equine aspect would then fail as at present no more than 12 horses graze the whole site – such a stocking ratio on this small site would denude the grassland, leading to surface water run-off and ultimately, erosion. The equine stock would need to be significantly reduced if the proposed total head of stock on the land was to be environmentally sustainable;  The functional test states there are in total 10 Alpacas “on the holding”. The “holding” is not defined and there are none present on site. If another site is already being used by the applicants, then there is no justification for the Alpacas to be on this site;  The Riding School is a very low-key component of the proposal, yet this is ultimately what the applicant seeks;  There is no agricultural enterprise taking place on the land;  There are no drainage ditches on the land and sewerage will have an impact increasing nitrate levels and contaminating underground aquifers on this chalk soil;  The area is within a designated Nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ) and due consideration should be given to this as part of the planning process. The total area as stated in the application is 16 acres equivalent to 6.4748 ha. Assuming this to be reduced to 6 ha (in consideration of the existing arena, the proposed buildings and car parking), NVZ guidance for nutrient management in such an area would indicate that while initially the animal stocking proposed would be acceptable, in the longer term such stocking intensities would be borderline based on the numbers given for the alpacas and the existing horses;  The need for such a large building when only 1 fulltime worker is proposed in the long term is questionable.  Alpacas have a gestation length of 335 to 365 days, with 350 days as a mean. Alpacas also can be mated at any time of the year and so husbandry associated with birthing can be easily planned. Unlike other ruminants, alpaca delivery occurs predominantly in the morning. In fact, 90% of deliveries occur between the hours of seven and eleven in the morning. Moreover the signs of the impending birth are well known and are easily recognised. Most alpacas deliver 'by the book', without any help. A competent stockman will be able to follow the process of delivery from experience and while every birth can be different it is divided into three stages of labour, the first stage lasting from 2 to 6 hours, so it can be seen that the need for a stockman to be permanently available 24 hrs a day 7 days a week has not been demonstrated any more than for any other farmed animal;  The development will unquestionably harm the characteristic landscape, tranquillity and should not be permitted on these grounds alone;  Land adjacent to the proposed development site supports a large diverse population of wild animals including large numbers of nesting birds ranging from goldcrests at the small end to owls and buzzards being the largest. Foxes, badgers, deer, hedgehogs, bats, slow worms and lizards are all to be seen, and will all be disturbed and adversely affected by the increased occupation of the site;  A scalping hard standing for car parking has been created and a field shelter has been erected, albeit not on the site proposed on the location plan;  There are private rights of way which are affected by the proposed development;  Overlooking, loss of amenity and privacy;  No opening hours submitted;  Increased risk of flooding from overland flow in extreme weather conditions;  The exercise arena floods in extreme weather conditions depositing sand on neighbouring land and giving rise to health issues for grazing animals, particularly neighbours horses;  A timber clad felt roofed building show no signs of sympathetic design. The size and scale of the proposed buildings are neither appropriate nor necessary;  Adverse impact on curtilage of adjoining Listed Buildings;  The proposed development, has no water supply. The cost of a borehole is something in the region of £20,000. A test borehole needs to be drilled, before planning consent is given, to see if there is water available. The borehole we use goes dry in late summer, we then have to pump water from our second borehole on our property to supply the six properties at Kingston Russell.

The letters of support make the following comments:

 The applicants are honest people. This is a worthwhile venture that would bring joy and happiness to a lot of people;  The applicants has a natural affinity with animals and her knowledge and understanding of her horses, and her patience and calm approach facilitates a safe environment for my daughters’ interest in horses to be developed;  The inclusion of onsite accommodation would be in the best interests of the animals not only for managing the birthing process and everyday activities but more and more often to prevent them from being stolen;  The applicant’s permitted use of the water supply can be verified by documentation;  The opportunity this development offers this family extends out to all those that will go on to visit, ride and learn from them so that others can be lucky enough to experience and gain in mental, physical health and self-confidence;  It is fantastic to see the countryside being used for what it was intended for – farming;  The proposed buildings will fit perfectly with the various and multiple farm buildings on both sides of the road;  Visibility has been mentioned however all the farm buildings on both sides of the road are visible;  Reinstating the nature hedgerow that should surround the fields could be an option to minimise impact and encourage back more wildlife;  Proposal provides a small viable local service which will benefit the area;  The family have previously supported children from ‘the service’ with experiences of caring and spending time with horses. Research shows that time caring for animals, particularly horses, provides a positive therapeutic experience for children that are experiencing hardship and whom have additional needs;  Rural development of this nature would be another asset in a rural environment;  It is difficult to see how a business of this size and nature could have an appreciable negative effect on the surrounding area;  The diversification and sustainability that this small business will bring can only be beneficial;  We look forward to the arrival of the alpacas which we believe have been carefully selected to become a high quality herd of show standard;  I am surprised to see a comment that the field has no water supply as it has, and already had one for many years before my purchase of the field in 2014.  This supply is guaranteed by leases, grants and easements which are transferred to new owners at the time of purchase. These agreements date back in origin to the time when the Littman estate sold off all this land;  The applicants have a good business plan that will benefit the community and disabled youngsters as well as being financially sustainable;  The benefits that this proposal will offer to the community will greatly outweigh any negatives;

7. Human Rights and Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED) 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property 7.4 Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED) As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:-  Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics  Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people  Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.

8. Relevant Planning History

1/D/09/000886 – Change of use of agricultural land to a training area for domestic horses (including the training of agricultural horses) – approved 21/7/09. The permission limited the training area to domestic/personal use.

WD/D/15/002828 – Pre-application advice provided on 24 December, 2015.

Applicant advised it is unlikely that at present a case could be made to grant planning permission for a dwelling which would be sited in the open countryside away from settlement limits where development is strictly controlled to that which is essential in such locations. Significant evidence would be required to show how the functional and financial tests can be met and initially only temporary planning permission would be given to site a mobile home on the land, even if those tests can be met. Providing details for wanting to live at the site is insufficient to demonstrate there is a required need to be located on site under planning legislation.

You are advised to consider the Local Plan policies, in particular Policy HOUS6 to see whether you feel you can demonstrate need for a dwelling. Advice can also be found in the National Planning Policy Framework. However, I must reiterate that even if such justification could be made, a temporary dwelling only would be allowed initially pending demonstration that the unit can sustain a full time agricultural worker.

9. The Development Plan

The West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015) 9.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The development plan for the West Dorset planning area comprises the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015). In the Local Plan the following policies are relevant to this proposal:

INT1 – Presumption in favour of development HOUS6 - Other Residential Development Outside Defined Development Boundaries SUS2 – Distribution of Development ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of geological Interest ENV5 – Flood Risk ENV8 – Agricultural Land and Farming Resilience ENV10 – The landscape and Townscape setting ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV16 – Amenity ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities ECON7 – Caravan and Camping Sites ECON8 – Diversification of Land – Based Rural Businesses ECON9 – New Agricultural Buildings ECON10 – Equestrian Development COM9 – Parking Standards in New Development

Policy HOUS6 indicates (in part) that:

“iv) New housing for rural workers (full-time workers in agriculture, horticulture, and other rural businesses), located outside the defined development boundaries, will be permitted provided that it can be demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live at or near their place of work.”

The supporting text preceding the Policy at paragraph 5.7.1 indicates in part: “…. In considering proposals for rural workers’ dwellings, the councils will need to establish that the accommodation is essential to the functional requirements of the business. It will also be necessary to establish that the business is financially sustainable in the long term, particularly where the proposal is for a permanent dwelling. The councils will also give consideration to the availability of alternative accommodation on the holding or nearby; and whether a dwelling on the holding has been sold recently on the open market. The size of the proposed dwelling should also be appropriate to the needs of the business and positioned where it will effectively meet the functional needs. A temporary dwelling may be acceptable in the case of new businesses that cannot yet show financial soundness but where it has been established that there is a functional requirement for on-site accommodation.”

In respect of Policy ECON10 – Equestrian Development – at paragraph 4.6.5 the supporting text to the policy reads:

“4.6.5 Riding and horse keeping are popular leisure activities which can be located in and around built up areas but generally require a rural location. Equestrian businesses can contribute to the rural economy, and provide opportunities for farm diversification. Equestrian development can range from field shelters and domestic stables to livery yards, riding schools, stud farms and racing stables and can also include all-weather training areas and gallops. These uses vary in their impact on the surroundings, and in the numbers of people visiting them, and these factors need to be taken into account in assessing proposals. Possible adverse impacts include fragmentation of agricultural land, and harm to the character of the countryside through poor land management or the proliferation of stables and other related equipment.”

Local Plan Policy ECON 10 reads:

ECON10. EQUESTRIAN DEVELOPMENT i) Equestrian developments, including extensions to existing premises, will be permitted where:

• Schemes would not, individually or cumulatively, harm the landscape character or rural amenity of the countryside; and • The scale of development is appropriate to the proposed use and the number of horses to be kept; and • Adequate supervision can be provided without the need for new or additional on-site residential accommodation; and • In the case of substantial built development proposals, a satisfactory independent assessment is submitted regarding the long term economic viability of the enterprise.

ii) Development should make use of existing buildings where possible and must otherwise relate well to existing development.

iii) Proposals to re-use or adapt substantial purpose-built equestrian holdings for non-equestrian uses will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that continued equestrian use is inappropriate or unviable. Proposed uses must be in accordance with other plan policies.

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (adopted 2009). Policy (a) Work in harmony with the site and its surroundings Policy (h) Maintain and enhance local character Policy (i) Create high quality architecture

10.2 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment – February, 2009 - South Dorset Downs Landscape Character Area.

11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 Conservation Area Appraisals – not relevant in this case

12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

Relevant National Policy

“S6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes”.

In Section 6 ‘Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes’, Paragraph 55 deals specifically with housing development in rural areas, advising (in part):

55. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside 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;”

Generally, the advice contained in Annex A of PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas – which, whilst superseded by the NPPF, is retained as a good practice guide. It indicates that new permanent dwellings in the countryside for rural workers will only be permitted where the business unit is established and has been profitable and economically viable for at least three years and:

a) There are no other dwellings or buildings locally which could be re-used to fulfil the need;

b) Where a need has been identified, a rural workers dwelling, should be of a size cost and construction commensurate with the established functional requirement.

Dwellings permitted under this policy will be subject to an occupancy condition.”

Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to secure high standards of design. Paragraph 64 goes on to indicate permission should be refused for development of poor design.

12.2 Conservation Area Appraisals – not relevant in this case 12.3 Dorset AONB Management Plan – the provisions of the management plan in respect of the visual impact on the character of the AONB are relevant in this case.

13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development The application seeks planning permission for the stationing of a mobile home for an agricultural workers dwelling for a temporary period of 3 years to meet an identified essential need for such accommodation. The requirements governing this need are outlined in the application as examined at the Council’s site visit and in an analysis of the functional and financial requirements by the Council’s Adviser, Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC).

13.2 The period sought is 3-years to enable the establishment of the proposed rural business to be operated from the site at Kingston Russell Farm, Kingston Russell, by the applicants, Mr and Mrs Hardiman, trading as Bride Valley Alpacas, producing both Alpacas for sale and for their fleeces. This will involve the development of a herd of 10 Female Breeding Alpacas, which will equate to around 33 head (including youngstock) producing offspring for sale as breeding stock, stud and livery services, selling halter trained stock and to produce fleece. It is also proposed to organise visits to see the Alpacas and run an ‘adopt an Alpaca’ scheme. The applicant does not presently own any Alpacas. The business Appraisal advises: “it is proposed to develop the business over a 3-year period building on a nucleus herd to be purchased by Tina Hardiman.”

13.3 In addition, the application proposes the establishment of a Riding School running a string of 7 ponies. It is noted from the sites planning history that permission for a 33.0m x 40.0m horse exercise arena was granted in 2009. The permission limited the training area to domestic/personal use, only.

13.4 Officers note from an internet search that:

“Alpacas are not cheap to purchase but economic to ‘run’. Breeding females cost in the range of £3000 – £10,000 dependent on age and absolute quality. This price includes a confirmed pregnancy, veterinary health certificate and delivery. Geldings will cost in the range of £300 – £750. Stud males can cost anything from £6,000 to £50,000.

13.5 Again depending on their quality and the quality of the progeny they sire. The exact number of animals and the mix of male to female will depend entirely on your aims and requirements.

13.6 The costs associated with each animal are typically:  Alpacas require access to soft meadow hay throughout the year. It is established that they need 1.8% of their bodyweight as dry matter fibre per day. During the winter months this equates to 1.4 kilos of hay per day or 40 kilos a month. A typical small bale hay might weigh around 20 kg and costs around £2.50 therefore costing £5 per month per head.  Alpacas require extra minerals and vitamins and we recommend Camelibra manufactured by Gro Well Feeds. Typical ration is 75gms per day per adult which equates to 8p per head per day. During winter months additional supplementation might be required and we recommend Fibregest manufactured by Gro Well Feeds. A typical ration costs an additional 4p per head per day.  Veterinary provision and prophylactic treatment approximately twice yearly, £50.00. We assume here that breeders will have been on a husbandry course and learnt how to do their own routine vaccinations, toenail trimming and so on.  There are a number of alpaca shearers who travel the UK and their costs depending on the number of alpacas and the distance involved range from £8 an animal to £25. They will also trim toenails and teeth if required.  Some provision must be charged for grass care and maintenance.  Re-mating of females from £350 to £1,500 per service.  Mortality and theft Insurance is recommended for breeding females and stud males at 3.5% of value.” Source: www.alpaca-uk.co.uk sourced 1/12/17. 13.7 The second element of the proposal is to set up and run a riding school. This involves running a string of seven ponies and will initially operate on Saturdays and then after school on Mondays and Wednesdays. The aspect of the proposals is focussed on a core of riding lessons primarily for children but including all ages. Hacks and pony rides will also be offered. Four lessons will be offered on Saturdays and two lessons on Mondays and Wednesdays as an After School Club in the week. Lessons are to be priced at £20/hour including care, and £15/hour for just riding.

13.8 The applicants propose a further element to their operations on the site which is to operate a camping ground on part of the site for a period during the summer months. The applicant advises that the business plan/assessment prepared by APA Consultants Limited also makes reference to use of part of the site for camping, for up to 10 pitches during the summer months. The applicants consider that this use will not take place for more than 28 days in any calendar year and, therefore, express planning permission is not required. Officers have examined this element of the proposals and find that it accords with the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 4 – Temporary Buildings and Uses – Class B – Temporary use of land as outlined in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). If any part of the site is used as a camping ground for more than 28 days in any calendar year, a specific planning permission for the camping use would be required.

13.9 Officers consider that the assessment for the requirement of the dwelling, and the submitted information accords with the provisions of PPS7 Annex A – particularly the functional and financial tests which seek to ensure that occupational dwellings in the countryside are permitted only where there is an essential need for such a dwelling. The proposed stationing of a mobile home for a temporary period of 3 years for an agricultural workers dwelling is considered to be acceptable. The Alpaca breeding business is to be established on the site and there is an argument that as the business is not yet established, the need for such a dwelling on the site is not justified.

13.10 Concerns regarding the stocking level of 30 Alpacas and 7 horses on a small area of land, which amounts to 6.50 hectares (less when the horse exercise arena is discounted) have been raised. It is highly likely that there will be insufficient grass for grazing, and there would be no hay crop to speak of with the land carrying this number of animals. Foodstuffs would have to be brought in and the sustainability of the land to accommodate these levels of stock is questioned. On the other hand, the proposed agricultural building would be available to house the Alpacas and horses as well as machinery, equipment and feedstuffs. Other agricultural animals such as cattle, pigs and poultry are reared in closed accommodation with feedstuffs brought in and do not necessarily have to be housed on a large land holding. Bearing this in mind, it is considered that the land holding and buildings to be provided are sufficient to house the proposed numbers of Alpacas and horses.

13.11 The proposed mobile home is functional in providing an acceptable level of accommodation to house a full-time agricultural worker assisting in the running of the land holding. In respect of size and scale, the internal floor area of the proposed mobile unit is less at approximately 128sq. metres in floor area than the locally recognised 140 sq. metre limit for rural workers dwellings, where such a dwelling is deemed to be affordable for a rural worker.

13.12 The submitted evidence produced by the applicants agent has been corroborated by the Council’s Agricultural Consultant (RAC) which confirms that the dwelling should be affordable in future to an agricultural worker and his/her family. It is acknowledged that the applicants will have to re-state their case after the expiration of the 3-year temporary time limit. In line with the advice from RAC, Officers agree that in due course the applicants will need to demonstrate that the profits generated are sufficient to provide a reasonable return to land, labour and capital, and fund the build-cost of a permanent dwelling.

13.13 It is noted that the Parish Council and neighbours question the need for such a dwelling. However, Officers consider that there is a clear need to provide a base for the Alpaca rearing and Riding School operations given the need for good stockmanship, equine care/supervision and training; and, for site security, particularly given the high value of the Alpacas to be accommodated on site. This is borne out in the advice received from RAC.

13.14 The proposed accommodation, is a twin-unit mobile home, and forms a dwelling that will provide a sufficient level of accommodation. Mobile homes do not benefit from any permitted development rights, and as a temporary permission is being sought there is no need to control, any extensions via the removal of permitted development rights. The Council will ensure that it maintains control over the affordability of the dwelling which will be restricted to occupants employed in agriculture, horticulture or forestry in accordance with the provisions of S.336 of the 1990 Planning Act. It is important that this distinction is made as the Alpaca rearing enterprise is the main driver behind the requirement for the mobile home. The Council would not restrict the occupancy of the mobile home to the equine element of the proposed use because this is ancillary to the main use of the site for the breeding and rearing of Alpacas; and, on its own does not constitute an agricultural operation. 13.15 The principle of development is considered to be acceptable and meets the provisions of adopted Local Plan Policies SUS2 and HOUS6; the advice contained in the NPPF; and, the provisions of PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ Annex A.

13.16 Scale, design and visual impact Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to secure high standards of design. Paragraph 64 goes on to indicate that permission should be refused for development of poor design.

13.17 Policy ENV12 ‘Design and Positioning of Buildings’ requires, amongst other things, that all development will be of a high standard of design, and in scale and keeping with its surroundings; whilst, the provisions of Local Plan Policy ENV10 ‘The Landscape and Townscape Setting’ reflects these requirements in seeking to achieve a high standard of development in relation to new housing, design and layout of development and its successful integration into its surroundings through the use of landscaping schemes.

13.18 Policy ENV1 makes provisions for development within the Dorset AONB, where in addition to the Policies contained in the AONB Management Plan, all new development must maintain the character of the AONB, and will only be permitted where justified by proven national interest and a lack of alternative sites. Development should, where possible, enhance the local landscape character. Outside DDB’s proposals for development should give particular attention to the protection of the scenic quality and distinctive local character of the landscape.

13.19 The proposal will result in an intensification of the use of the land and the built form thereon. Presently, part of the site is given over to the existing horse exercise arena, which was approved in 2009. A stables building stands next to the arenas western side. This proposal will add a mobile home, an agricultural building and a field shelter to the above on this 6.50 ha site.

13.20 The design and scale of the twin-unit mobile home are considered to be acceptable. The proposed timber finish to the walls in a dark brown or green colour or a natural wood finish would be acceptable. The roof covering is proposed to be mineral felt. The agricultural building is proposed to be constructed using box profiled sheets for the walls and roof. The colour finish can be conditioned.

13.21 These new structures will largely be screened from public views from Greenford Lane by the present hedging and trees in the wooded area to the west of the site at Kingston Russell Farm on the roadside boundary. Views directly from the farmhouse at Field Barn Farm to the north will also be limited due to a fold in the intervening land.

13.22 The comments received from neighbours and Natural England regarding the siting of the mobile home and agricultural building are noted. They are both to be located some distance from the A35 road to the south – which is the main public vantage point from where the site is visible. However, Officers consider that the siting of the agricultural building will to some extent, act as a screen to any views of the mobile home when viewed from the direction of the A35. Moving this building on site closer to the adjoining tree screen would allow views of both the Mobile Home and the agricultural building to be obtained from this direction, and would not assist in helping to alleviate the visual impact of the development, and its impact on the character and appearance of the AONB.

13.23 It is noted that the dwelling will be closely located to the proposed agricultural building on the site which is considered beneficial in providing an acceptable level of proximity in respect of animal husbandry, surveillance, monitoring and security and, generally monitoring livestock requiring closer observation when ill. The siting of the dwelling close to existing buildings, farm machinery, feedstuffs will also act as an aid to site security in respect of guarding against incidences of theft of plant and equipment, machinery and livestock, which is a recognised issue in rural areas.

13.24 The proposal satisfies current planning policy in terms of scale, design and visual impact and accords with the advice contained in the provisions of adopted Local Plan Policies ENV1, ENV10, ENV12 and HOUS6; and, Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF. 13.25 Residential amenity The nearest neighbouring residential premises, Kingston Russell Farm, lies approximately 90 metres to the west of the mobile home site. A further dwelling lies a similar distance to the north of the site at Hill Barn Farm. No other dwellings are sited close-by, or are visible from the site. Given the distance between these existing dwellings; the siting of the proposed mobile home; and, intervening boundary hedging and woodland, the proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the amenities of occupants of Kingston Russell Farm, Hill Barn Farm, or to occupants of to any other nearby dwelling.

13.26 The scale of the use proposed will result in increased traffic volumes, using the narrow approach roads from the A35 to the south and Greenford Lane, from Compton Valence to the north. It is unlikely to generate significant traffic volumes and vehicle noise for neighbours, although with the camping element of the proposals traffic will be noticeably heavier in the July – August period, during the school summer holidays.

13.27 From the submitted details, it is considered that the likely impact on the amenities of occupants of nearby dwellings arising from the proposed development are acceptable in respect of the provisions of adopted Local Plan Policy ENV16, and, the advice contained in Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’, of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

13.28 Highway safety The comments received from Dorset County Council - Highways Development Control section are noted. Greenford Lane is lightly trafficked, and the Local Highway Authority raises no objection on the grounds of highway safety, and offers ‘no observations’. The existing access is proposed to be used with the gates to be set further into the site. As indicated above, this is considered to be acceptable. Any additional vehicle movements to and from the suite are unlikely to be significant.

13.29 Flood risk and drainage The site lies in Flood Risk Zone 1 - lowest risk, which is outside any recognised floodplain or area subject to flooding from rivers, the sea, or surface water run-off. It is clear from the photographic and video evidence provided by neighbours that there is already a drainage issue with the existing horse exercise arena, however, this facility already exists having been granted permission in 2009, and does form part of this application. In adverse weather conditions and times of continuing, persistent rainfall, usually during the winter months, the site and adjoining land are both subject to saturation and overland flow. The wet conditions, waterlogging and pools of standing water already occur on adjoining land, particularly that to the south of the site as this is at a lower level than the site, and water will always flow downhill to the lowest point. It is considered that the development is unlikely to result in any additional run-off from hard surfaces.

13.30 The site is gently sloping and incorporates a shallow valley. Water already runs across the site from higher ground onto lower ground – both areas of which lie outside the application site. The applicant is in the process of improving the drainage on site which is permitted development as part of ongoing agricultural operations. Whether the development takes place or not, such conditions are likely to re-occur, particularly during extreme weather events. The site is proposed to draw water from a borehole. The sewage connection associated with the mobile home will be to an existing septic tank. Surface water will be channelled into soakaways. These facilities and arrangements are considered to be acceptable and accord with the provisions of Local Plan Policy ENV5 – Flood Risk.

13.31 Any other material considerations None. There would be no adverse biodiversity impacts or loss of trees arising from the development.

13.32 Environmental Impact Assessment This development does not fall within the scope of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2015 and so an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

In preparing this report the planning officer has considered fully the implications and requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.

14. Summary 14.1 The application for the stationing of a mobile home for a temporary period for an agricultural workers dwelling for a period 3-years to enable the establishment of a rural business has been adequately justified by the independent functional and financial appraisal outlining the requirements for the dwelling on site. Whilst there is no existing enterprise and the land area is small, it is nevertheless, sufficient to accommodate an Alpaca Herd, Riding School and horse/pony accommodation; plus, a seasonal camp site - which bon its own does not require planning permission. It is considered that the submitted information accords with the provisions of PPS7 Annex A – particularly the functional and financial tests, and the provisions of Policies SUS2, HOUS6, ECON8 and ECON10 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015.

14.2 Local Plan Policies ENV1, ENV10, ENV12, and HOUS6 all seek to ensure that occupational dwellings in the countryside are permitted only where there is an essential need for such a dwelling. The siting, scale and design of the mobile home, and materials proposed to be used are acceptable, and it will be well related functionally to the holding it is intended to serve. No neighbours amenities will be adversely affected; and, there have been no objections to the proposal by Dorset CC – Highways on highway safety grounds. The occupation of the dwelling can be controlled by a condition limiting its occupancy to persons employed in agriculture or forestry, is justified. Therefore, the erection of a temporary dwelling in the countryside is acceptable as it will accord with the provisions of Policies SUS2, and HOUS6 contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice contained in paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

14.3 Planning permission should be granted for a three year temporary period.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve - subject to the following conditions:

i. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan - Drawing Number 2791/01 Site Plan - Drawing Number 2791/02 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 2791/005 Floor plans and Elevations General Purpose Store - Drawing Number 2791/04 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 2791/03

All stamped received and dated 9 October, 2017.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. ii. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). iii. This permission is for a limited period only expiring on 31st March, 2021, and use of the land for the siting of the mobile home, hereby permitted, shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before that date unless permission is granted on an application made to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To enable the Local Planning Authority to fully consider the effects of the development in the interests of residential and visual amenity in accordance with the provisions of Policies ENV1, ENV10, ENV12, SUS2 iii) and HOUS6 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015); and, the advice contained in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. iv. The occupation of the dwelling, hereby permitted, shall only occur as long as Alpacas are farmed on the land-holding as outlined in the application.

To ensure that the mobile home is occupied in conjunction with the approved use of the land-holding for the farming of Alpacas in compliance with the provisions of Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; Policies SUS2 iii) and HOUS6 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015); and, the advice contained in paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. v. Details of any external lighting proposed in connection with the development hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with the provisions of Policies ENV1, ENV10, ENV16 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015). vi. No development shall be commenced until details of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development in accordance with the provisions of Policies ENV1, ENV10 and ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015).

APPENDIX B Appraisal to determine the need for on-site accommodation Land at Higher Kingston Russell Application WD/D/17/002460

Prepared by Roger Sewill MRICS Land Agent

Introduction

1.1 The applicant, Tina Hardiman wishes to develop an alpaca farm and riding school on land at Higher Kingston Russell. She wishes to reside on site and has applied for temporary planning consent to install a mobile home for herself and her family.

2. Instruction

2.1 The application for residential accommodation was supported by the applicant’s agricultural consultant Tony Coke from APA consultants, who supported both the functional and financial justification to reside on this holding.

2.2 West Dorset District Council commissioned its own independent consultant Peter Williams of Reading Agricultural Consultants who also saw the benefits of on-site accommodation to support the proposed business.

2.3 However, the District Council’s planning committee requested further analysis into the application in particular around whether the predicted financial returns were achievable, as well as guidance on the functional need to live on-site. As such the LPA have asked me to provide this independent re-assessment of the application, to determine whether the need for the development meets the planning guidance for rural workers, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the planning policies in the existing Local Plan.

2.4 I met the applicant on 20th April, when she was accompanied by her parents, her agent Sam Croft of Willis & Company (Town Planning) Limited, and her landlord, Mr G Vincent. I have had subsequently spoken with Tony Coke, and received more information relating to the business from the applicant and Tony Coke.

3. Location

3.1 The land is situated at Higher Kingston Russell.

4. Background

4.1 The background details of this application have been covered in the previous appraisals but for completion I summarise as follows :

The details are as follows:

History Tina’s parents supported by Tina worked with Mr G Vincent at Muston Farm Piddlehinton. On the sale of this farm Mr Vincent bought the 6.5 ha at Higher Kingston Russell to enable Tina to establish her own independent business. As such the land is owned by Mr Vincent but the arrangement between them is, once established, that Tina will surrender her tenancy agreement and purchase the land.

Enterprise The proposal is to introduce a flock of high quality breeding alpacas and sell the offspring, as well as introducing a part time riding school.

The Alpacas Year one - 11 female Alpacas (on order now) Year three - 19/20 female Alpacas

The aim is to purchase a high quality nucleus stock of breeding female alpacas so that the female offspring can be reared to initially increase the parent stock, with the ultimate aim of breeding the highest quality stock possible in order to achieve the best market value for future sales.

Once fully stocked with 19 female alpacas the female offspring will be kept for around 18 months to be sold as breeding females. All males will be sold the year they are born. Therefore when fully stocked there will be 19/20 Females + their offspring 9 or 10 yearly females 1 -2 male stud

When I met Tina she advised me she had agreed the purchase of the following animals  From Cornwall  5 pregnant females and 3 female offspring plus a further 2 females

 From Wiltshire  2 pregnant females  2 weaned females waiting for stud  I stud male

 Axminster  3 pregnant females with 1 female and 2 male offspring  2 pregnant females

Riding School

Year one – 7 ponies (already on site)

The APA appraisal detail this taking place as four lessons on Saturdays and two lessons after school on Mondays and Wednesdays, primarily focusing teaching children to ride but also offering some hacking.

Camping

There is some mention of letting part of the site during summer months for camping but this enterprise does not feature in the financial appraisals.

The Land The applicant confirmed to me that she has secured the 6.5 ha of land on a 10 year Farm Business Tenancy with the ability to acquire the freehold during this period. This position was confirmed to me by the owner Mr Vincent.

Buildings There are no buildings currently on the land.

There is an outdoor riding ménage

Labour The holding is to be operated by Tina but with the support from her immediate family. Tina expects to work full-time on her business but will also be retaining her part-time NHS employment.

Business Budget accounts for the farming element have been Financial submitted within the APA agricultural appraisal. These show Budgets expected profit excluding labour but allowing increase in stock values to be: Year 1 £20,490 Year 2 £35306 Year 3 £38,217

5 Proposed Development

5.1 The proposal is to install a temporary mobile home to enable the business to become established. In addition the applicant wishes to install an agricultural barn and field shelter.

6. Planning Policy

6.1 In order to determine the justification for accommodation for a rural worker, both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the planning policies in the existing Local Plan need to be considered.

The NPPF sets out in paragraph 55

 ‘To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside 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.’

The existing Local Plan details under para 5.7.1 reference to rural agricultural dwellings: there will be some cases where the viability of an agricultural, forestry or other enterprise for which a rural location is essential, depends upon a worker being resident on site to oversee the operation of the enterprise. In considering proposals for rural workers ‘dwellings, the councils will need to establish that the accommodation is essential to the functional requirements of the business. It will also be necessary establish that the business if financially sustainable in the long term, particularly where the proposal is for a permanent dwelling….. A temporary dwelling may be acceptable in the case of a new business that cannot yet show financial soundness but where it has been established that there is a functional requirement for on-site accommodation.

Also Policy HOU6 para iv sets out: new housing for rural workers (full-time workers in agriculture, horticulture, and other rural business), located outside the defined settlement boundaries, will be permitted provided that it can be demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live at or near their place of work

The tests I have used are similar to those in the applicant’s agent’s appraisal but I have also commented on whether the proposed enterprises would be seen as a full-time occupation. The test being:  The holding is a full-time holding  Is there a functional need for on-site accommodation  The financial status of the business is sound

6.2 Full time test

I agree with the applicant’s agent’s methodology that 275 Standard Man Days (SMD) is a theoretical guideline to a full-time position.

Their report also sets out the expected time required is as follows

There are no text book guidelines to the SMD required for alpacas. However, the figure of 6 SMD/breeding female seems high. As does the figure of 3.5 SMD for other alpacas. For example by comparison the Agricultural Budgeting and Costing book details that a suckler cow and single calf including field work (silage, fertilising, muck carting etc.) as 2.25 SMD/cow and calf. A dairy cow including milking plus field work is detailed as 5.75 SMD/cow.

On the basis that alpacas are hardy animals, kept at grass all year around, I would not anticipate an alpaca and her offspring would be more labour intensive than say a suckler cow and calf – this would place the alpacas at no more than 2.25 SMD/head. I therefore believe this figure they have used must include some of the marketing and alpaca experience as described.

The riding school hours have been estimated by the applicant at 150 SMD. Again this would seem high for the management of 7 hardy horses and an element of the riding lessons is likely to have been included.

Therefore I would suggest that the animal management requirement is less than a full-time role but with the added on additional work through the alpaca experiences and the riding lessons plus the summer camp site, then the work involved to run the business as a whole would be a full-time requirement.

6.3 The Functional Test

The applicant’s appraisal has set out that there is a functional need to live on site to manage alpacas citing many reasons from unpredicted birthing times, mating supervision and care of the new born cria, along with security.

However, the only two real difference I see from any other type of livestock is the unpredictability of the birthing times and the value of the cria. Other factors are similar to what would be expected with anyone looking after livestock.

Although to support the need to live on site, I do see security as a factor in this situation. As the public are being invited onto the site for riding and alpaca walking, the location will be more accessible and known to the public than if the animals were kept in an isolated location with no public contact. This will inevitably result in an increased security risk, both to animals and belongings.

Therefore looking at the business as a whole, accepting this is a full-time commitment to run all the elements proposed, I do not see it practically working by someone living out of sound or sight of the holding.

As I am not aware there are any properties available nearby, I would conclude that there is a functional need to live on site.

The Financial Test 6.4 On examining the various reports by both by APA consultants and Reading Consultants it was clear to me that what was missing was a detailed description of the projected business returns once the enterprise is fully established. The information provided showed the early years for the start-up, to part-way though transitioning to a sustainable position but not the established sustainable position.

I therefore asked the applicant’s agent to consider providing this and will forward the revised financial forecast to the LPA.

Examining their proposals and revised financial forecast in more detail I comment on the following:

Alpacas The new information shows that they are forecasting reaching a sustainable level by years 5 and 6. (2022/23 and 2023/24). This seems more realistic than expecting this to be achieved within 3 years.

The figures used to calculate the expected sale price for alpaca off-spring have been obtained by the average sale price from the Alpaca Seller website page. These place male yearlings at £400/head, female yearlings at £1659/head and breeding females at £2815/head.

I was able to cross reference some of the recent alpaca purchases made by the applicant to the individual animals being advertised on this site. These were shown as being sold and the prices reconciled. This gave me reassurance that the prices advertised were not inflated.

It is clear that the applicant has purchased higher value parent stock than the average prices shown on the Alpaca Seller website. Therefore if these are bred with a quality stud male it would be natural to assume the off-spring would also command the higher end of the market value. Therefore from this research and reasoning I do not see the figures proposed, being the average prices, as unrealistically high. It should be noted that these are budget figures and should the applicant seek to establish a more permanent residence on-site then actual evidence of sales would need to be established.

I questioned the applicant as to whether the males would be sold before 1 year old and therefore not available for the alpaca walks. She confirmed that post 2017 all males will be sold at less than 1 year old and the young females will be used for the alpaca walks. This therefore correctly puts the male sales at the £400 mark.

The applicant also confirmed to me that all young females will be sold pregnant but I can see they have allowed in years 5 and 6 for half to be sold as female yearlings at the lower value. This is sensible budget management.

By year 2023/24 (year 6) the predicted gross margin for the alpacas is £19,177. I do not see this as unrealistic.

Riding School Regarding the riding school enterprise this is predicted to achieve a gross income of £35,100 pa and after expenditure (excluding fixed costs) a gross margin of £29,355 pa).

I was concerned that the proposed lessons could not be sustained in an outside school for 50 weeks/year, especially as some of the lessons were programmed for after school on Mondays and Wednesdays.

The applicant’s agent confirmed the following by email to me:

‘Tina does think that once the site is established that they will be able to fill their 12 spaces on a Saturday. Tina’s has aimed to be very competitively priced so that as many people as possible can benefit from riding, in addition to which she has a number of old clients and their friends waiting to come. When operating her old school she had many clients come to her from neighbouring schools as my high standards of safety and her training/expertise. Tina operates a unique training system combining fun learning alongside more traditional techniques and strives to teach how to ride correctly rather than push clients into jumping etc. before they’re ready. When Tina closed her previous school clients were upset/disappointed and didn’t want to go back to the other riding. Accordingly, we are not expecting to have any problems filling the spaces once the word gets around and Tina has informed old clients.

The kids parties I.e. pony / alpaca will take place on Saturday afternoons as this tends to be the quieter time for lessons.

Although we only have an outdoor school during adverse weather Tina will do indoor learning sessions in the warm which will be fun and an opportunity to learn about other areas not covered during usual lessons I.e. colours /breeds/ feeding etc etc . Tina will do lessons on a 4 weekly rotation of a standard lesson, hack ,standard lesson and a gymkhana lesson on the fourth week this way both the ponies and clients enjoy a varied learning program.’

I also challenged whether sufficient funds had been allowed for shoeing etc. Again the applicant has satisfactorily described that most of the horses will not require shoes and so the cost provided seems an accurate assessment.

I continue to have some doubts as to whether the predicted income is achievable from the riding school enterprise but this will very much depend upon how the enterprise is marketed and run.

Fixed costs

The total fixed costs have been budgeted at £8440. Removing from this the return on capital (shown as £2,510), depreciation (shown as £1,000), the fixed costs figure is reduced to £5290.

This includes the sum of £1600 for the rent of the field. However, I was satisfied that this figure was not included as I assumed once established the applicant would purchase the field. In checking this with the applicant she confirmed via email: ‘I will surrender my tenancy and purchase the land but this is an option that I have if I wish to do so and all being well that is obviously what I intend to do but it is not something that I have to do if I’m not able to or do not wish to and can then carry on the tenancy.’ On this basis it is sensible to keep the figure in as shown on their accounts.

Net Farm Profit The budget accounts show by year 5 and 6 the net farm income is predicted to be just under £40,000 pa.

In summary I found that 1. For the budgeting purposes the figures, shown for alpaca sales, were reasonable. 2. I remain concerned that the riding school will not generate the returns expected but the applicant has satisfactorily described her business plan. 3. The fixed costs have allowed for the rental arrangement to continue. 4. The business is forecast to reach a sustainable financial level by year 5 and 6

On the evidence provided the applicant sets out a clear proposal to achieve a sustainable income. The proposed figures indicate the business should be producing just under £40,000 net profit pa.

Based on this proposed net farm income and the evidence provided I am satisfied that the financial test has been met for this start up business.

7 Evaluation 7.1 This is a relatively small area of land to generate an income from in order to sustain a full-time worker. However, it is clear that the applicant is quickly establishing a foundation stock of breeding alpacas and intends to add value by inviting the public to the site.

7.2 If the business is to achieve its proposed objectives, I do not see that it is practical to live away from the holding. Although the alpaca numbers are relatively small, their wellbeing will be a key part of running the business alongside the riding facility. It would be unlikely to be a sustainable venture at this location by someone living away from the holding. In addition, as described above, the fact the public are being encouraged to visit the site means animals and belongs will be more susceptible to theft, so this reinforces the advantages of on-site accommodation. On this basis I am satisfied that taking the business as a whole there is a functional need to live on or very near the site.

7.3 In examining the budget accounts it is clear that the proposed increase in stock values make a considerable difference in the early years. Therefore now the budget proposals have been shown for up to six years it is easier to see that the business becomes financially sustainable over this slightly longer period. If the LPA approves the temporary accommodation then from, an agricultural point of view, the normal three year permission would remain appropriate and could be reviewed at this period but it is likely that this longer period should be allowed for before any permanent dwelling is considered.

7.4 As this is only an application for temporary accommodation, I am satisfied with the methodology put forward for calculating the alpaca returns. I do have some reservations as to the likely returns from the part-time riding school but this will largely depend upon how it is marketed and run. However, should it be considered for renewal or a permanent dwelling is sought then actual sale figures and costs will be needed.

7.5 The applicant’s agent, as well as Reading consultants have cited many planning appeals that support similar ventures. However while re-appraising this application, one of the determining factors I have seen, has been the observation of the applicant’s own knowledge of her business plans. This gives me reassurance of the genuine nature of the proposals rather than relying solely on professional advice or comparable appeal sites to support a planning application.

8 Conclusion

I am satisfied in reappraising this application that there is sufficient justification to support the 8.1 functional need for on-site accommodation. The financial budgeting for this application for a temporary dwelling is appropriately set.

9 Qualifications

9.1 I, Roger Sewill MRICS, carried out this report and appraisal. I am a Land Agent and a member of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors having qualified in 1989. Since 1992, I have been carrying out agricultural appraisals to determine the agricultural need for on-site accommodation on farms.

Report by Roger Sewill MRICS

Dated 10 June 2018