DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/01161/B Applicant: Ms Kathryn Revitt Proposal: Removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling Site Address: Ohio Field Bernahara Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3HH Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.04.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The test for removing the agricultural condition is whether it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, and also horticultural workers in this case, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants the reserving of the dwelling for that purpose. In this case there are believed to be a number of concerns with the information provided and so it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the agriculture/horticultural condition to this property Ohio Fields. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (in particular Housing Policy 8 and paragraph 8.9.4).

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):

• Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara Road, Andreas As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE OBJECTIONS

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The site in question is the residential property Ohio Field, Bernahara Road, Andreas which is a residential dwelling (agricultural workers dwelling) with 0.65 hectares (1.5acres) to the north and south of the dwelling. It sits on the western side of the Bernahara Road approximately 1km south of Andreas Village, and shares a site border with Ohio Cottage to the south. The site is surrounded by trees and a registered tree area. - 1.2 The bungalow on site is of modern design with two entrances to Bernahara Road and is directly beside the road set back by less than 10m. The dwelling is surrounded by fields - one field is part of the same land ownership as the dwelling, the field on which it is sited. This field is landscaped and features a number of planted trees within. It does not appear to be cultivated or used for livestock grazing.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has had a number of planning application made, dating back to 1965 and a total of seven applications for a single dwelling were made on the site and all where refused until in 1981 an application was approved (20.07.1981). The description was for the "Construction of bungalow". This was initially refused, but following the Review Stage the Committee overturned their earlier decision and approved it, subject to a number of conditions including Condition 6 which stated: "The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was in horticulture or agriculture in the island and including also the dependents of such persons aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee." Condition 8 states: "The proposed dwelling must be retained as part of the horticultural holding as defined in the submitted application and must not be sold or let off separately." - 3.2 An application was submitted back in 1992 for Ohio Field for the change of use from an agricultural workers dwelling to a private residence. It was refused on review. (92/01386/C). The applicant explained in his submitted Statement that while he built is home in 1981 following the approval and "had been working as a farm worker in the area and with a small market garden at "Ohio Field", but within two years farm workers no longer required in this locality. My market garden was no longer economically viable and went out of business. My Circumstances have changed." - 3.3 A Certificate of Lawful Use Application (19/00115/LAW) for the use of the farmworkers dwelling at Ohio Filed as a residential dwelling was recently submitted and refused on the following grounds:

"R 1. It is considered that there is contradictory and patchy information regarding the last occupation of the previous occupant, and not enough evidence to support the claim that there was no one living within the property in the last 10 years whose employment or last employment was in agriculture. Whilst it has been stated by some that the original occupant was not an agricultural worker as far as they could recall, no alternative occupation was suggested, when it is considered that archaeological interests were a hobby. There is therefore inadequate supporting evidence that the agricultural condition on the property had been broken."

3.4 Essentially, the last application was refused as the application needed to demonstrate that the property had been occupied for the previous 10 years by a person who was not employed or latest employment is or was in horticulture or agriculture in the island (condition

• 6). While the Officer at the time accepted that the application had demonstrated the site had not been used for agricultural/horticultural for a number of decades and possibly never. However, the Officer considered given the former applicant/retired farm worker had been living in the property (i.e. retired farm worker whose last employment was in agriculture) up to his death (believed to be 2017). Accordingly, while the currently applicants had purchased the property off the Trust and potentially not occupied the property as per the condition; the property had not been unoccupied unlawfully for more than 10 years.

4.0 PLANNING STATUS - 4.1 The site is not designated for development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:- - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 provides general policies relating to development in the countryside. It allows for new agricultural dwellings in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated (Housing Policy 7). In judging whether to allow for new dwellings regard has to be made to various criteria such as;

• a) The previous or proposed severance of land and buildings;
• b) The agricultural justification for sub-division of a farm;
• c) The long-term viability of new or unproven agricultural enterprises such as small holdings, market gardens, or horticulture;
• d) The extent to which the applicant's employment in agriculture is only part-time; and
• e) In the case of a retiring farmer, whether the proposal would result in vacation of an existing farm dwelling for agricultural use and whether the applicant would continue to assist in the operation of the farm.

4.4 When granting an approval, Housing Policy 8 requires a condition to be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture or a widow or widower or such persons or any resident dependants. - 4.5 It is paragraph 8.9.4 of the plan that is most relevant to this application and the wording of this is important. It states: 'Such a condition will not usually be removed on subsequent applications unless it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose.'.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objection (25.11.2019). - 5.2 Highway Services have no objection (06.11.2019). - 5.3 The owner/occupier of Ballacurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara, have commented on the application which can be summarised as: (18.11.2019) While accepted the history of the site, the fact remains the property was purchased by the applicant as "an investment" and wishes to develop it and realise a profit; the property should have been marketed at the price that the estate sold it then is may well have been within financial reach of a purchaser who actually met the condition (as previous applicant did) and who may have been able to enjoy the residence without need for lifting the condition; any speculation by applicant as to the earnings of an agricultural worker and what they could afford does not discount that a retired farmer wishing a retirement home in the country could possibly have achieved the price which was not tested in the open market. (20.11.2020)

Previous application 19/00115/LAW was made by Ballasyr Stud; however the ownership has since been transfer by Ms Revitt who is by local knowledge is connected to the Ballasyr Farm; I

• am now concerned that in two neighbouring parishes there is one property which is seeking for a tie to be removed (application site) and in the next door Parish of Jurby there is a need for
• an agricultural workers dwelling being sought (this has since been approved) and a rather substantial dwelling at that; and there does appear to be an element of double standards here which I do feel should be raised. (26.11.2020) Again stress that when consider the application for new agricultural dwelling (19/00749/B) and the current application that the applicant is also a Director of Ballaseyr Stud Limited for both applications; Also through local knowledge the owner Ballaseyr Stud, who may have numerous companies connected or otherwise, has recently purchased a number of farms in the locality (Ballavarry and Lheakherrow) all of which hold considerable acreage and farmhouse(s) and probably with other attached tied agricultural dwellings. Before policy is set aside to allow the erection of new dwelling in the countryside, agriculturally tied or not, perhaps consideration should be given to the whole land parcel owned but the overriding owner, what each holding may "need" and perhaps the whole area be countered with the number of houses available as a whole to see if the accommodation needs of any worker could be satisfied with the buildings already within the wider ownership of the company.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 When considering applications for the removal of such a condition, the overarching consideration is whether the long-term need for that particular dwelling for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. The policy does, therefore, allow for the removal of such conditions or 'ties'. The issue in this case is whether or not the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to show that there is no long term need for an agricultural farm workers dwelling at the site or in the vicinity. - 6.2 It should be noted that from the information contained in this and the previous Certificate of Lawfulness application (CLA), it is clear that the site has never been used for agricultural activities (i.e. a farm) and potentially very little, if any, horticultural activities. The Officer who considered the CLA accepted that the actually site was never used as was originally approved to be. Comments included in the current application, include a letter from the then applicants advocate who help prepare planning application in the late 1970's and early 1980's and represented the then applicant in the planning appeals and reviews stages. From the information provided and wording in the conditions (6 & 8) of the approved decision notice for the dwelling; it appears it was approve more for horticultural activities (Market Garden) rather than a farm. The size of the site would also support this view given the land holding was only 0.56ha (1.5acres) which would be farm too small for a farm holding and perhaps more suited to a market garden. - 6.3 Were the application made now, it is considered highly unlikely that planning permission would be granted. There are no policies which support the approval of dwellings for horticultural workers and in term of a farm workers dwelling, this would need to be connected with a proven farm holding and would also need to be sited within or very close to the main farm complex. Further, if this application was approved, it would likely have required the market garden be commenced and in operation for perhaps a number of years before the dwelling could be built. This is perhaps why the original application failed, as no such condition was attached, and essential resulted in a new dwelling in the countryside; albeit, given the applicant was a farm worker for other farms as confirmed by his owner letter (dated 14/08/1993) and then became a retired farm worker (possible was retired when he initially moved into the house), he complied with Condition 6, which did include "agriculture" although it could be argued that "horticultural" was the primary use and the main reason the application was approved; albeit this was perhaps not what was envisaged when the application was originally approved by the Planning Committee in 1981. However, the fact remains the word

• "agriculture" is included, possible to future proof the dwelling and enable future farm workers living in the property.
• 6.4 Generally, when the Department is considering applications for the removal of an agricultural tie to a dwelling; they would seek the applicant to market at a discounted rate which is affordable to agricultural workers (or anyone who would meet the condition) for a minimum period of 6 months to ascertain the need. This is just one approach to help determine the need of an agriculture workers dwelling, there still needs to be convincing evidence that the need is no longer required. Furthermore, especially more recently with property prices significantly increasing over the last 20 years (approx), it is generally found that this approach is becoming more and more inadequate. In the recent past the Department sought a 25/30% discount on the market price; but was advised by a Planning Inspector this was the incorrect approach as this with most properties in the countryside did not make them affordable to agricultural workers. Accordingly, the approach as mention initially is what is now sought (i.e. the individual property in question should be offered at a rate which an agricultural worker can affordable). It should also be noted that the same Inspector commented that there should be no financial gain from an agricultural workers dwelling; they are approved to meet the essential need for the operation of the farm only. Therefore any party believing they should be able to removal the tie to enable more financial gain, is under a misunderstanding of the reasoning why the dwelling was approved. There does appear from comments made within the applicant's statement that they have potentially made this misunderstanding. This will be explained later in this report.
• 6.5 The applicant has not marketed the property in question, so this must weigh against the application. It is also understood (or at least no evidence has been provided to the contrary) that the Trust of the original application/owner sold the property to Ballaseyr Stud Limited (or to an associate company) without it being marketing first. So again it would appear no test was undertaken to determine if there was an agricultural/ horticultural worker who wished to purchase the property first. It is not known what the property was sold for. The applicant's statement indicates that the current value is £500,000; albeit they comment that; "Our Client obtained the property recently from Mr Skillan's Estate as an investment property and has carried out major refurbishment. The property as present is valued at £500,000 and carries a rental value in the market of £1650-£1800 per calendar month."
• 6.6 The fact the applicant has purchased presuming knew that such a condition was attached, and if not presumably a planning search was not undertaken; however, this would have been at their own risk and therefore should not be a material reason which should be taken into account. Further, given they have confirmed that "major refurbishment" has been undertaken, must reasonable be considered that the amount the applicants paid was much less than £500,000, which is its currently value after "major refurbishment".
• 6.7 In relation to advertising the property the applicants comment that: "It has been claimed by the Planning Department that the property should be advertised for sale as an Agricultural Ownership or Letting Property, with if necessary a reduced valuation to encourage persons from the agricultural sector. This however has been shown recently at appeal not enforceable. However, even if it was considered at a reduced value in terms of sale or rental, the property is well beyond the wage range of an agricultural persons within the sector. Based on current IOM Farm Workers Rates a top employee may obtain a salary of £2021k per annum. Rental of the bungalow would require a minimum of £19k per annum where

• as a 25 yrs interest only mortgage would be min £550-£600 per month. So the property is not feasible as an agricultural workers property."

6.8 Again the applicants appear to be missing the key point, in that they are quoting figures on what the market price of the property is today (£500,000) without an agricultural condition/tie attached. As outlined previously, when marketing a property for agricultural workers this should be at a rate they can afford. I.e. using the applicants figures for a salary

• of £20-21k per annum, which would clearly reduce the numbers the applicants have quoted in term so value of the property and consequently the rental and mortgage required. Further, the property is available to a person employed in horticultural activities as well. There are no comments from the applicants in terms of this potential owner/tenant. The fact the applicants have clearly indicated that this is an "investment property" does raise concern also in terms of this application.
• 6.9 Arguably, in favour of the proposal is that it isn't especially common even when agricultural workers dwelling are marketed at a discounted rate, especially when they are not near or connected to a farm holding, being bought by a farm worker. A number of farm workers dwellings approved in the 1960's to 1980's are a common feature in the landscape, generally bungalows in isolated positions with little to no land associated with them. It is generally these properties where the Department receives application to remove such ties/conditions. Generally, permission has been approved as there is little or no requirement for them form an agricultural given they are not connected with a farm holding. Accordingly, while the applicant has not advertised the property at a discounted market rate; it could be argued that it falls within this category. A counter argument could be made and this is explained in paragraphs 6.12 to 6.14 of this report.
• 6.10 It is also important to note the current applicant would appear from comments received; and which have not been disputed by the applicants, is a Director of Ballaseyr Stud Limited. It is also noted that the applicants for the Certificate of Lawfulness application on the same site last year, was made by Ballaseyr Stud Limited and the application for a new agricultural dwelling last year (at Loughan) was made by Ballaseyr Stud Limited also, which is a large agricutural holding. It should be noted that when considering a planning application for a new agricultural dwelling; factors which must be considered are "(a) the previous or proposed severance of land and buildings and (b) the agricultural justification for sub-division of a farm (IOMSP)". When considering the removal of a condition/tie, essentially the reverse must also be considered when determining the long term need for an agricultural farm workers dwelling at the site or in the vicinity. It is not consider unreasonable given the above factors, that there does appear to be a connection with the current applicant and the company (Ballaseyr Stud Limited) who has previously made an application on the site and which is a large agricultural business/holding. It is also important to note that the company was used when seeking approval for a new agricultural dwelling, why it has not been used again in relation to the application site now is unsure. It is also not know if the currently applicant also complies with the Condition 6 (if they live at the property), being an employee of Ballaseyr Stud Limited which appears to be involved in agricultural activities.
• 6.11 The Department sought calcification on the current land holding (Ballaseyr Stud Limited) and the applicant's agent made the following comments: "Ballavoddan Manor and Ballaseyr Stud, Andreas comprise 235.75 acres. This is for young and retired racehorses plus Shires and Suffolk Punches - it is not part of the other farms though we do have sheep grazing some of the land to keep it tidy. Lhea Kerrow, Andreas comprises 80 acres. It has a farm house which is occupied by the sheep farmer and his family. It also has a bungalow which is occupied by a local retired couple both in their 70s. Ballakesh, Bride 99 acres - no house. This land is used with the sheep farm Regaby Mooar 88 acres - no house. This is next door to and used with the sheep farm Burmah Road Andreas 4 acres - no house. Used with the sheep farm Regaby Ardonan 90 acres rented - no house. Used with the sheep farm. Ballavarry Farm Andreas 185 acres. 2 semi detached cottages both occupied by employees. One employee works full time at the dairy farm and the other works at Lhea Kerrow with occasional assistance at Ballavary. Both are under 30 and desperate to farm. Loughan and Bretney, Jurby East 166 acres - new approved house. We have beef cattle at Loughan and use it for summer grazing for in calf heifers. Bretney is our main Silage crop. We need a house to support this operation and the future farm development.

We have 1,000 ewes with 200 ewe lambs following on and look to average 2 lambs per ewe so

• at times will have over 3,000 head of sheep on our land. We have a milking herd of 180 cows plus young stock following on so have approx. 400 head of cattle on the dairy farm. We have a small herd of Beef Shorthorns (16 head) which we are looking to grow plus we need a home for the beef calves that the dairy cattle produce as not all dairy cattle are put in calf to dairy cows. Someone has to work look after this herd. Our current staff of 4 people simply cannot do this with the stock that they already care for."

6.12 Using this information the Department was able to determine the distance and time taken to drive to each site (Using Google Street). Please note these are not exact, as fields/farms etc to each location may be closer or further than the figures shown. However, it gives a fair representation; The application site is:

• 350 m and 1 min to entrance of Ballavoddan Manor and Ballaseyr Stud, Andreas;

• o 2.9km and 4 min to entrance of Lhea Kerrow (farm), Andreas;
• o 5.6km and 8 min to Ballakesh, Bride;
• o 3km and 4 min to Regaby Mooar;
• o Unknown but likely with a few minutes walk to Burmah Road Andreas (site is on Burmah Road);
• o 3.3km and 6 min to Regaby, Ardonan;
• o 650km and 2 min to Ballavarry Farm Andreas; and
• o 4.7km and 8 min to Loughan (new farm worker dwelling recently approved) and Bretney, Jurby East.

6.13 These figures are important to note. It is also useful to note that the application site is located with close proximity to a number of holdings which the applicant's employer has control with and is a very large agricultural business/holding of around 1000acres. The applicants confirms: "We have 1,000 ewes with 200 ewe lambs following on and look to average 2 lambs per ewe so at times will have over 3,000 head of sheep on our land. We have a milking herd of 180 cows plus young stock following on so have approx. 400 head of cattle on the dairy farm. We have a small herd of Beef Shorthorns (16 head) which we are looking to grow plus we need a home for the beef calves that the dairy cattle produce as not all dairy cattle are put in calf to dairy cows. Someone has to work look after this herd. Our current staff of 4 people simply cannot do this with the stock that they already care for." - 6.14 There are further comment sin terms of staffing and additional information on the farm businesses which can be viewed on the planning website. All this information would seem to suggest that Ballaseyr Stud Limited is a substantial farm operations and business with a number of employees involved in the farm activity. It is again perhaps concerning that given Ballaseyr Stud Limited would appear to be very recent owners (they still may be) of the application property; but it has been seen more as an "investment property" rather than a farm workers dwelling; especially when the farm is large and does not appear to be decreasing in size. - 6.15 It is noted one farmer workers who currently lives in one of the two cottages at Ballavarry Farm Andreas workers and travels to Lhea Kerrow (4.2km and 9min drive and would go past the application site). Therefore it is presume the distance is acceptable in terms of farm operations, namely cattle in this case. Accordingly, the application dwelling would seem to be in a good location to serve all the farms in the holding. Further, the use of the dwelling is available to horticultural workers also.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 As with most applications of this type they are generally complicated and more difficult to determine. Clearly the dwelling when it was approved and subsequently built in the 1980's;

• it was not used for the primary use which was accepted by the then Planning Committee as a market garden/horticultural use or in a very limited manner. Also the site was never used for a farming activities; albeit it is not especially clear it was ever proposed to be for such uses. Accordingly, it could be concluded that given the original intended use (horticultural) was never implemented and as the original permission potentially never sough agricultural use on the site, then the Department could be lenient in this case.
• 7.2 However, a counter argument is that while the horticultural use was never taken up as was likely envisaged and hoped, the Planning Committee at the time wished the dwelling to be used for either horticultural or agricultural activities given they were approving an application which was an exception to planning policy at that time (i.e. against new dwellings in the countryside). This view could be support by the fact the then applicant did not appeal the imposing of the condition, and in fact was able to live in the property lawfully till his passing; given the original applicant/owner was an agricultural worker and either before or after he occupied the property became a retires farmer worker; which again he complied with the condition. Therefore, there was never a breach in the condition; hence why the CLA was refused. Accordingly, the issue of the agricultural condition is now raised given the current application.
• 7.3 There is the fact, that Condition 6 is in place and is arguably as relevant now as it was when it was approved.
• 7.4 The test for removing the agricultural condition is whether it is shown that the longterm need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. In this case there are believed to be a number of concerns which do not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the agriculture condition to this property Ohio Fields. Accordingly, it is recommended the application be refused on this ground.
• 7.5 Should the application be refused, on the grounds that there is no demand for an agricultural workers dwelling in the area, this would of course likely be a material consideration in the event of any future applications for new dwellings.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 18.05.2020

Signed : S BUTLER Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 18.05.2020

Application No. : 19/01161/B Applicant : Ms Kathryn Revitt Proposal : Removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling Site Address : Ohio Field

Bernahara Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3HH Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer Mr Steve Butler Addendum to the Officer’s Report

It was agreed that the reason could be clarified to specific the concerns with the information (recent planning approval for a new house, lack of appropriate marketing and recent refusal of certificate of lawfulness). The Committee unanimously accepted the amended recommendation and the application was refused for the following reason(s).

The test for removing the agricultural condition is whether it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, and also horticultural workers in this case, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants the reserving of the dwelling for that purpose. In this case there are a number of concerns with the information provided (including a recent planning approval for a new agricultural workers dwelling, a lack of appropriate marketing and a recent refusal of a certificate of lawfulness application) and so it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the agriculture/horticultural condition to this property Ohio Fields. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (in particular Housing Policy 8 and paragraph 8.9.4).

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The test for removing the agricultural condition is whether it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, and also horticultural workers in this case, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants the reserving of the dwelling for that purpose. In this case there are a number of concerns with the information provided (including a recent planning approval for a new agricultural workers dwelling, a lack of appropriate marketing and a recent refusal of a certificate of lawfulness application) and so it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the agriculture/horticultural condition to this property Ohio Fields. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (in particular Housing Policy 8 and paragraph 8.9.4).