Loading document...
| Application No.: | 12/01203/C |
| Applicant: | Ballamanaugh Farms |
| Proposal: | Variation of agricultural worker's condition to allow dwelling to be let to non agricultural tenants, guests and members of staff for temporary periods |
| Site Address: | Tramman Ballamanagh Road Sulby |
| Isle Of Man | |
| IM7 2HD | |
| Case Officer: | Miss Jennifer Chance |
| Photo Taken: | |
| Site Visit: | |
| Expected Decision Level: | Planning Committee |
THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT SEEKS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A SECTION 13 AGREEMENT
Site
1.1 The application site is a property known as Tramman. It is a two storey detached property located on the western side of the Ballamanagh Road and South of Sulby Village.
The proposal
2.1 The application seeks approval to vary a condition restricting use of the property to an agricultural worker that was attached as part of planning approval PA 84/00082/B for a fairly substantial four bedroomed dwelling constructed for a farm manager. The condition stated:
'The occupation of the proposed dwelling will be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture on the island and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee.'
2.2 The variation seeks to allow the dwelling to be let to non-agricultural tenants, guests and/or members of staff for a period of up to 10 years unless the need for an agricultural worker arises during that period. After 10 years, the restriction that the property be occupied by an agricultural worker returns, unless an application to extend that period or remove the condition is submitted and accepted.
2.3 The application is a culmination of negotiations between the planning officers and the applicants and seeks to address the issues regarding the use of the building that has been vacant for some time and is falling into disrepair. The history of the site, as detailed below, shows that two applications to remove the condition were refused. Members' attention is drawn to the two appeal decisions which are appended.
2.4 The idea of allowing the temporary derogation of a condition is a unique one. The terms of achieving this are too complex to be set out in a new condition and as such should be controlled by legal agreement. The agreement has been prepared prior to consideration by
the Committee in order that legal representatives could be assured it was achievable and so that the Committee can satisfy itself of the terms. A copy of the draft agreement has therefore also been attached as an appendix to this report.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2 Planning application 84/00082/B sought planning approval for the erection of a dwelling. This previous planning application, which was subsequently built as Tramman, was approved on the 24th February 1984. Two of the conditions attached to this approval are specifically relevant to the current planning application:
"The proposed dwelling must be retained as part of the agricultural holding known as "Ballamanaugh" as defined in the submitted plan and must not be sold or let off separately therefrom, to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee."
"The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture in the Island and includes the dependents of such a person as aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee."
Planning application 07/00216/B sought approval for the removal of the agricultural worker's condition on the dwelling. This application was refused on the 24th July 2007. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was dismissed, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 8th November 2007. (copy attached)
3.3 Planning application 08/00958/B sought approval for the removal of an agricultural worker's tie (condition 8). This application was approved on the 18th August 2008. A subsequent appeal against the approval was upheld on appeal, with the appeal refusal decision issued on the 12th February 2009. (copy attached)
3.4 Planning application 09/00110/B sought planning approval for the removal of the condition retaining property as part of Ballamanagh Farm holding. The condition specifically relates to an agricultural worker's occupancy condition (condition no. 8 of PA 84/00082/B). This planning application was withdrawn.
3.5 Application 12/00404/C sought to remove condition no. 7 of application 84/00082/B, that required the dwelling to be retained as part of the agricultural holding known as "Ballamanaugh" and not sold or let off separately therefrom, to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee." This application was submitted in response to comments made by the planning inspector who considered 08/00958/B that it would be fairly futile to remove a condition restricting the use to an agricultural worker, whilst retaining a condition that the house be retained by the farm. The legality of such a condition is questionable, but in any event the application was withdrawn during discussions with the planning officer when the applicants made it clear that they did not want to sell the property, they wanted it to be kept as part of the estate, they just wanted it to be put to use.
4.1 The site lay outside of any specific local plan and is therefore covered by the Isle of Man Development Order 1982. It is shown as being within an area of 'woodland'. It is not within
any type of conservation area but is within an area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 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 these to be had 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.
4.3 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.
4.4 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.'
5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners: Application not displayed in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. No other comments to add.
6.1 The issue to be determined is whether it is acceptable to agree to an agricultural worker's dwelling being used by a non-agricultural worker.
6.2 The application building is a dwelling of some considerable size that was built for a farm manager. It lies within a large farm of 911 acres of which 791 are farmable and supports cattle, sheep and arable. The farm is made up of three farmsteads and three dwellings, two of the houses are subject to agricultural workers' conditions.
6.3 The dwelling is unoccupied and has been for a period of 7 years. Applications have been sought to have the condition removed but these have been refused. In 2007, planning application 07/00216 was considered. At that time the building was described as a substantial, attractive and well maintained 4 bedroomed house. It has been built by the previous farm owner to house a farm manager and his wife who was also engaged as a personal assistant and companion to the owner's wife. The present owner of Ballamanaugh (the farm holding) took the decision to let out the whole farm holding in 2004 and the incoming tenant was apparently satisfied with other accommodation associated with the land and the farm holding was jointly operated with their main farming enterprise some 12 miles away.
6.4 In order to prove that the building was no longer needed for agricultural workers the applicants advertised the house to let at a rate of £975 pcm, and whilst there had been a large response, most respondents could not meet the condition. One applicant had qualified but could not afford the rent. The price for rent reflected those in the area minus about 30% which had apparently reflected the practice of the Planning Authority at the time. The Inspector at the time was dismissive of the approach of the Planning Authority and the applicants. He stated that the proper focus on the test of need was diverted by an arbitrary although well known qualification of requiring an offer of 25-30% less than the market price of the house. He felt that there was no support for the approach. The policy requires the test of there being no further long term need for accommodation to be demonstrated. He felt that the Planning Authority had knowledge of the range of incomes available to agricultural workers and this would be the basis to estimate a realistic sale or rental value. He rejected the applicant's claim that being required to offer the property at a rent within the reach of an agricultural worker as being a 'wantonly extravagant sacrifice'. He disagreed wholeheartedly with this stating '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.'
6.5 The inspector then considered whether the marketing exercise adequately tested the need and found that it did not. The application was refused.
6.6 The applicants considered the inspector's report and submitted a fresh application the following year. It did not necessarily address the previous inspector's concerns rather than disagree with his conclusions and confirm that in their view the lack of interest from agricultural tenants demonstrated that there was no need to keep the dwelling for such a purpose. The application was approved by the Planning Committee, however Lezayre Commissioners appealed the decision. The Inspector's report is attached. The Inspector (a different one), did not accept the arguments made by the applicants and raised further queries such as the house only being advertised for rent and not sale and why condition 7 (tying the house to the farm) was not being addressed. The applicants clarified that it was not their intention to sell the property and they wanted to keep it as an asset within the farm estate.
6.7 The overriding message from the Inspectors' examination of the issue is twofold. Firstly that the test of need is not satisfied by advertising a property at 25-30% less than the market value, especially if that is still outside the reach of a farm worker, and that an assessment of long term need should be made. Whilst the advertising of the property to rent provides some indication of demand for that period, the policy stance is that applicants should show the there is no long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on that farm and in the locality.
6.8 The information that would help planners to consider the long term need is the same type of information that demonstrated the need for the property in the first place. This information relates to the size of the farm to which it related, the type of agriculture being carried on, the number of full time workers and any need to be on site. It would also need to look at the land outwith the farm to see if there are other farms adjacent that may need a dwelling.
6.9 Following discussions with the agricultural advisor in DEFA it was found that based on the enterprise advised by the applicant i.e. the size of the farm, head of cattle, sheep and amount of arable land plus the associated grassland management there would be a labour requirement of 7383 man hours which would result in a standard labour requirement of 3.69 standard labour units on the farm. (There are two other properties). The advisor comments that the farm holding is very large and if he was asked whether such a farm with two existing
dwellings sought permission for a third, he would have said that a third dwelling was justifiable.
6.10 Consequently, despite the fact that the farm operates at the current time without the dwelling that would make up the third, it is clear that, particularly if the farm operates differently, a third unit may be required at some point in the future.
6.11 The situation does however leave the current owners with a vacant building, that is now, not in a good state of repair having been vacant since 2006 and which could remain vacant for some time to come.
6.12 The planning authority needs to consider carefully the problem of the cyclical loss of a farm dwelling, then a subsequent approval of a new one, then its subsequent loss to farming and so on. There are a great number of instances where the provision to allow for a new house is abused and this is usually to the detriment of the longevity of the farming industry as houses are bought by non farmers and in some instances the land also lost to farming.
6.13 The approach to allow for a temporary derogation is intended to allow for the use of the dwelling for a non agricultural worker whilst the dwelling is not needed by a farmer, but help retain the dwelling should the need arise. This would mean that the impact on the countryside of built development would remain neutral. Such an approach would also help meet the intention of the policy to keep buildings available for long term need.
6.14 As stated earlier, this approach has not been used previously, in the Isle of Man or England and thus has not been tested, but this should not be a reason to not agree to it.
6.15 The terms of the legal agreement allow for use for 10 years unless a clear need arises locally for an agricultural worker. The means to test whether there is a need for a dwelling for a worker would be assessed in similar ways to applications for new dwellings. Although it may be difficult for the Planning Authority to gain knowledge of need, this normally comes to light when an application for a new dwelling is submitted. What the agreement will ensure, is that no further applications for dwellings are likely to be submitted for this farm whilst the agreement is in place. The reason that 10 years is considered reasonable is that the property now needs some work carried out to improve it which would not be cost effective if the period of time was 2 or 5 years, and in any case would be shorter if a need arose.
Recommendation.
7.1 It is recommended, that subject to the prior finalisation of a legal agreement in the terms described above, that the application be approved.
7.2 Party status
Lezayre Parish Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.
Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement
Date of Recommendation:
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. This approval shall be considered implemented upon the completion of the legal agreement pursuant to it setting out the terms of the variation/temporary derogation.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
