Wellow Alpaca Farm: Council Planning Committee overrules Planning Inspectorate

Wellow Alpaca Farm: Council Planning Committee overrules Planning Inspectorate 

The alpaca farm in Wellow is in the County Press again this week after the Isle of Wight Council's Planning Department and the Planning Committee unilaterally overturned a decision made by the Planning Inspectorate in November 2013 by granting permission for Mr and Mrs Payne and their dependants to live on agricultural land, in their mobile home.  Local residents and Shalfleet Parish Council had opposed a planning application by property developers Mr and Mrs Neil Payne to continue to live with their family in their mobile home on agricultural land in Wellow. Mr and Mrs Payne installed a mobile home on agricultural land and proceeded to live in it with their family without planning consent, in 2011.

In August 2013, Mr Payne published his plans to build a modular "affordable" housing estate on agricultural land near to the Wellow Millennium Green without consent and without consulting local residents or the Parish Council.

In her Decision Statement the Planning Inspector, Ms Suki Tamplin, said "The appellants [Mr and Mrs Payne] said that the enterprise would not be able to fund the purchase or the rental of an off-site house, but the evidence suggested that have used their own private funds and have other business interests".  "I am not convinced that the purchase or rental of existing accommodation close to the appeal site is not feasible".  

"The picture presented by the 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 their claim that living on-site is essential.  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."  "I have found 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.  The essential ongoing needs of the alpaca enterprise do not outweigh the aims of policies seeking to limit development to defined settlements.  An on-site caravan would significantly and demonstrably harm the aims of sustainable development policies.  Therefore the appeal is dismissed."

The objectors are taking legal advice.