Loading document...
The application site is the curtilage of Ballaloaghtan, Kerrowkeil Road, Grenaby which is a detached farm house with approximately 40 acres of land. The site is situated to the western side of Kerrowkeil Road.
The application seeks approval for the removal of the agricultural workers tie which was attached to the previous planning application 02/00412/B (erection of an agricultural building).
The following previous planning applications are considered specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
PA 93/01633/A Approval in principle for conversion of part of a redundant farm building into tourist accommodation - Refused
PA 93/01303/B Approval in principle for conversion of redundant farm building into holiday accommodation - Refused
PA 01/00294/A Approval in principle for erection of agricultural dwelling and renovation of existing barns, approved at appeal on 12th March 2002. - Approved
PA 02/00412/B Erection of agricultural dwelling was permitted on review on 26th July 2002. - Approved
The following conditions were attached to this application:
C1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C2. The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was in agriculture in the island, and including also the dependants of such persons aforesaid.
C3. All services must be laid underground and all soil stacks constructed internally.
C4. The windows, excepting French Windows and roof-lights, must be sliding sash, and not tilting casements.
C5. The roof must be clad in dark grey natural slate or good quality imitation slate, a sample of which must be submitted to and approved by the Committee prior to any use thereof.
PA 03/01920/B Amendment to approved farm building renovation (01/01979/B) to provide natural slate roofing instead of metal sheeting.- Approved
The following conditions were attached to this application:
C1. This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.
C2. The dwelling may be occupied only by a person or persons engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
C3. No approval is hereby granted or implied to Plan No. 195/03 - Typical House Plans and Elevations.
PA 07/01799/B Erection of an agricultural store to replace existing - Approved
The following conditions were attached to this application:
C1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C2. The building must be used only for agricultural purposes.
C3. This permission relates to the erection of an agricultural building as shown in drawings 572/01, -/02 and -/03 all received on 25th September, 2007.
The application site is in an area of "white land" identified on the 1982 Development Plan; this is an area of open countryside which is not zoned for development. Given the nature of the application the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence that there is no longer an agricultural need which requires the occupancy of the dwelling to be restricted to persons employed by agriculture.
Highways Division do not oppose this application as it has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.
Malew Commissioners object to the application stating that it would represent the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside, which would be against planning policy. It also stated that it would set a precedent for many other properties in the Parish of Malew.
Planning application 02/00412/B for the erection of an agricultural dwelling was approved; Housing Policy 7 will only permit development of new agricultural dwellings in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated. The applicant provided evidence to demonstrate that an agricultural dwelling was required in order to successfully farm the land. If the applicant was to continue to commute, he argued that it could have had adverse effects on the business and the flock. The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (formerly Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) advised that the scale of the operation carried out by the applicant justified having a stockperson on site. Although the farm holding is only made up of 40 acres, the applicant farmed another 351 acres, 150 of which the applicant rented. The remaining land was within the applicant's ownership and additional land was relatively close to the farm holding.
As mentioned earlier in the report, this approval came with a number of conditions. This application seeks to remove the following condition which was attached to the above permission:
C2. The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was in agriculture in the island, and including also the dependants of such persons aforesaid.
The agricultural worker's dwelling was applied for by the applicant, who has since built and occupied the dwelling which is the subject of the tie attached by C2. above.
The applicant has developed a successful business, breeding, rearing and marketing Manx Loaghtan meat and other Manx Loaghtan products. This has lead to a large demand for the product in both the Isle of Man and the UK. The applicant now spends a large amount of time in the UK to continue promoting the product for both producers on the Isle of Man and in the UK. The applicant has now decided to move to the UK in order to continue their business, and have applied for permission to have the agricultural tie removed in order to sell their property on the open market.
Planning Circular 3/88 provides guidance for new agricultural dwellings. The Department's stance towards removing such a condition is set out in Paragraph 6 of this Planning Circular. Such agricultural ties will not usually be removed unless it can be shown that the long term need for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants the reservation of the dwelling for that purpose.
The applicant's agent has provided information in order to demonstrate that there is no long-term need for the dwelling for agricultural workers, either at Ballaloaghtan or in the locality.
As part of this submission a letter from Chrystals Estate Agents has been submitted. Mr Neil Taggart, Manager of Chrystals had written to the applicant setting out the marketing campaign which has been carried out to sell the property.
In the letter it states that the marketing of the property commenced on the 23rd September 2010, this involved placing the property on the website, the property guide and distributed through the offices. Chrystals' database highlighted a number of potential interested parties who were forwarded details and later contacted by telephone. The feedback from these interested parties has led to a common negative theme. Whilst they are interested in the property the agricultural occupancy condition has deterred viewing.
The Agent has also said that the applicant advertised the property in Irish Farmers Journal during April 2011 due to the difficulties encountered by Chrystals.
Within the evidence provided, the Agent has said that there has been interest in the property, however much of this has come from people who would farm Ballaloaghtan but are unwilling to put an offer in due to the agricultural occupancy condition.
This information suggests that there is still an agricultural interest in the site. The agricultural workers tie which was a condition attached to the approval was placed on this dwelling in order to retain it within a farmstead for the use by those persons employed in agriculture, therefore reducing the potential of further development in the countryside. If the interest in the site is from someone who still wants to farm Ballaloaghtan, it is judged that the agricultural occupancy condition would not present an issue.
The second part of the evidence provided by the Agent suggests that agriculture has changed quite significantly since 2001 when the applicant first applied for an agricultural dwelling. The annual census figures provided by DEFA show that there were 754 agricultural holdings in 2001 but in 2010 had reduced to 418. In 2001 there were 162 paid workers; in 2010 it had dropped to 121.
Another factor set out in the Agent's evidence is that an agricultural worker on agricultural wages would be unlikely to obtain a mortgage in the Isle of Man unless they had income from other sources.
At present the application site is marketed as a 3 bedroom house for sale on Chrystals Estate Agents website. When opening the details, it is further described as 'A superbly situated residential farm with first class modern house, versatile fully renovated farm buildings, large store and 40 acres of organic pasture.' From reading the property details it does not appear to be aimed at the average agricultural worker. The agricultural occupancy condition is mentioned in the additional details in relatively small print.
The property is priced on the open market and it would appear that in reaching a value the agricultural occupancy condition has not been taken into consideration. A similar application PA 06/01343/B (Removal of an agricultural tie on property – Shady Moar, Shore Road, Glen Maye) was refused at appeal. The Inspector concluded that "In my view, in order to establish whether there is a demand for agricultural workers' accommodation, it is necessary that the property should be marketed at a price that an agricultural worker could reasonably expected to afford. Given the scale of difference between the open market valuation of "Shady Moar" and the level of agricultural incomes on the island, it seems to me that a substantial discount in the market valuation would be necessary to be a realistic test of need."
This approach was taken in the assessment of PA 07/00216/B which sought approval for the Removal of agricultural workers condition – Tramman, Ballamanaugh Road, Sulby which was refused at appeal. The Inspector concluded that: "I find the Planning Authority approach to this case confused, and a proper focus on the test of need has been diverted by an arbitrary and apparent well known qualification of that test is requiring an offer for sale or rent at a discount of 25-30% of the market price. There is no support for such an approach. The policy requires the test of there being no further long term need for accommodation to be demonstrated."
The Inspector goes on to state; "I find the appellant's approach to this matter equally flawed. It appears to start from the premise that the owner is being required to make a "wantonly extravagant sacrifice" by offering the property at a rent within the reach of an agricultural worker. I disagree. The planning system makes a very significant exception to the normal strict control over development in the countryside in order that the farming industry may carry on. A dwelling of this nature is an essential tool of the trade. Nevertheless, the gains from selling such a property are so large that the concession is open to abuse, against which the planning system must guard."
The Inspector also comments; "I reject the view that the owner is being required to make a sacrifice. The business associated with the farm holding was able to flourish because of the presence of a dwelling, and can be expected to have shown a return on the money invested in the dwelling. On
change of ownership a properly advised purchaser would have known that the value of the appeal property would have been severely affected by the condition, and that full market value may not be realised. The only "sacrifice" being required of the owner should the test demonstrate a continuing need, is the inability to make a windfall profit from the sale or rental of what was part of the equipment of the farm. That is not a consideration appropriate to planning."
From the comments made by the Inspectors with regard to previous applications it is clear that agricultural dwellings should be marketed at a price which an agricultural worker could reasonably afford. Having looked at agricultural wages, the price of this property would be out of reach for many agricultural workers, and therefore does not take into account the agricultural occupancy condition.
A reduction in price of 25 - 30% is unlikely to demonstrate whether the dwelling is still required for agriculture either on this farm or in the locality.
It is interesting to note that there have been a number of recent previous planning applications for agricultural workers dwellings within the locality of the application site. The two which stand out as being most relevant are 10/00008/A and 11/00930/A.
10/00008/A – Approval in principle for the erection of a retirement dwelling. At the following address:
Field 434869 Kerrowkeil Road Grenaby Ballasalla Isle of Man
This application was refused at appeal and the decision was confirmed on the 9th August 2010. This proposed dwelling was for a retired farmer who wished to help his son on the family farm. Although there is provision within the Strategic Plan to accommodate retired farmers, it still needs to be demonstrated that there is real agricultural need. It was considered that in this instance there was not sufficient need to justify another dwelling in the countryside. However, this would suggest need for a agricultural dwelling in the locality. The applicant in this particular case would have been eligible to purchase Ballaloaghtan given his latest occupation in agriculture.
11/00930/A – Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling. At the following address:
Field 434152 Grenaby Road Ballasalla Isle of Man
This application is currently under consideration. The applicant requires another dwelling to accommodate an essential farm worker.
It is clear from both of these cases which are in the general locality of the application site that there is currently a need for agricultural workers dwellings.
From the information which has been submitted by the applicant and their agent, It is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the removal of the agricultural occupancy tie.
It is worth noting that there is a presumption against development in the countryside. Ballaloaghtan was considered to be an exception to this general stance in order to assist in the running of the farm. Without this condition it represents a new dwelling in the countryside which would be contrary to a number of policies in the Strategic Plan.
For the above reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.
The local authority, Malew Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 09.08.2011
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
There is in the submitted application insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no further need or long term need for agricultural workers' accommodation in this locality.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 11/8/11
Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Delete as appropriate
Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
