Loading document...
Isle of Man Government Railtys Ellen Vanvin
Planning statement on behalf of Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control in respect of a planning application for the Removal of an agricultural occupancy condition Grenaby Farm Grenaby Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 3BD
Reference 13/91442/C
Statement prepared on behalf of DOI Planning and Building Control by Miss Laura Davy
28 May 2014 13/91442/C Page 1 of 7
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER.
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Grenaby Farm, Grenaby, Ballasalla which is a group of buildings and a large area of land which totals approximately 17.08 ha . The group of buildings include the main farmhouse, garaging and a converted outbuilding which is now a cottage. 1.2 The farmhouse which was approved under PA 93/00286/B replaced an original farmhouse which dated back to 1840; the replacement dwelling was built on the site of the original dwelling. A number of the outbuildings also date back to 1840, these buildings have been converted to garaging and one has been converted to a dwelling. It was demonstrated that there was sufficient agricultural justification for the dwelling and was approved on review, with an agricultural occupancy condition was attached to this approval. 1.3 The main farmhouse has an agricultural occupancy condition, the converted outbuilding does not. 1.4 There are no agricultural buildings on the site or the land within the applicant's ownership.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition which was attached to the main farmhouse. The condition was as follows:
C1. The occupation of the proposed farmhouse must be limited to persons whose full time employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture in the Island and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid.
3.1 The following previous applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
PA 87/04154/A Approval in principle to demolition of existing building and erection of a new farmhouse, garages, farm office and associated outbuildings - refused
PA 88/04091/B Demolition of existing and erection of new farmhouse - refused PA 89/01536/B Demolition of dwelling, erection of a new dwelling and renovation of barn refused on review
PA 92/00891/B Conversion of barn into dwelling and garage - approved PA 93/00286/B Erection of a new farmhouse and alterations and provision of new agricultural buildings - approved
PA 00/00648/B Creation of new access to field - approved PA 05/00217/B Conversion of existing barn into a dwelling - approved
4.1 The application site is within an area identified as "whiteland" identified on the Area Plan for the South 2013. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Spatial
Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 7 and Housing Policy 8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the Area Plan with the exception of: a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); c) Previously developed land ${ }^{1}$ which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); e) Location-dependant development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.
New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated.
Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
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.
Agricultural need should be established having regard to: a) What living accommodation has been built on, or in association with the farm holding in the past, and how it is now occupied; and b) Who will occupy the proposed dwelling, and what role they will play in the operation of the farm; in some circumstances, there will be a legitimate need for a dwelling for a retiring farmer who proposes to vacate the farmhouse but to continue to assist on the farm.
5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose 5.2 Malew Commissioners do not object
5.3 The owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold comments on the process of searches within the Government and feels that the system has failed. 5.4 The Agricultural Advisor in the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture has carried out an assessment of the site. Based on the land currently in the ownership of the applicant, no outbuildings, no animals and no crop growing it does not justify a dwelling.
6.1 Approval was granted for the erection of a replacement farmhouse under PA 93/00286/B after three previous refusals PA 88/04091/B, PA 87/04154/A and PA 89/01536/B. 6.2 Planning application $93 / 00286$ was for the erection of a replacement farmhouse which was approved, the following condition is of relevance:
C1. The occupation of the proposed farmhouse must be limited to persons whose full time employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture in the Island and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid. 6.3 The applicant purchased the property in January 2005, it was bought with approximately 50 acres. The applicant was not aware of the agricultural occupancy condition which was attached to the farmhouse.
6.4 The planning history which is interrogated relative to a property was migrated the the electronic database in late 1999. Unfortunately the search on historic date only presents conditions of approval where they were originally recorded electronically. The 1993 application was originally refused but permitted on review. This means that the search shows the application but does not pull through the conditions which were attached. 6.5 The search received by the applicant's advocate showed the previous applications, but as mentioned above the 1993 application did not show any conditions. The conditions however could have been found through further investigation on the advocate's part.
Assessment of the application 6.6 The applicant has indicated that she has never been employed in agriculture or received an income from agricultural activities during the period that she has lived there. The applicant has an informal grazing agreement with a farmer who operates from The Eairy in Marown, this was set up to keep the grass at a reasonable level. 6.7 The applicant has indicated that the property was put on the market in 2008 after the breakdown of the applicant's marriage. There were a number of price reductions on the property and an offer was made in 2013. Information regarding the property and price reductions has not been submitted with this application. 6.8 The agricultural occupancy condition came to light when the purchasers advocate carried out a search on the property, this came back with no conditions, but they then carried out further checks and the condition was attached to the approval and was visible on the microfiche. 6.9 There are no specific policies in the Strategic Plan relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. There are policies which relate to the erection of agricultural workers dwellings which have been provided in "Development Plan Policies" section. Paragraph 8.9.4 is considered to be specifically relevant and 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." 6.10 The previous applications on the site relate to the erection of the new farmhouse and also for the conversion of the outbuildings. None of the previous applications are for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition. 6.11 Historically an approach to test whether there was agricultural need for a residential property was to offer the property for sale for a period of 6 months at a $25-30 \%$ reduction. However, whilst this may have been appropriate in years gone by, when there were a larger number of smaller agricultural units, dwellings were often smaller and far cheaper, it is not considered that this approach readily tests whether there are agricultural workers nearby who are in need of accommodation, or whether a farm may need a property in the 'long term' (which is the test set out in Paragraph 8.9.4 of the Strategic Plan). 6.12 Given the absence of adopted policy on this matter it is helpful to consider previous appeal decisions for the removal of agricultural ties and look at the different approaches taken by the Inspectors. 6.13 In the case of PA 11/00908/C - Norfolk Nurseries, Greeba - the Inspector stated that a 'sustained and realistic marketing campaign is required targeting those that might comply with the condition'. No information has been provided regarding the marketing campaign of the property, but it has not been advertised as having an agricultural tie. 6.14 As members may recall in the case of PA 07/00216/B - Tramman, Ballamanaugh Road The Inspector stated "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 apparently well known qualification of that test by 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." 6.15 In the case of PA 08/00463 - The Mines House, Abbeylands - The Inspector suggested that marketing should commence at a low base. If multiple offers are received then the price can be raised, effectively until there is a "winning bid". This is not the approach taken in the application. 6.16 The erection of an agricultural dwelling is an exception to development in the countryside as set out in General Policy 3, and therefore it was appropriate to ensure that the dwelling remained available for future agricultural workers. In summary Paragraph 8.9.4 goes on to say that such conditions will not usually be removed unless it is demonstrated that there is no long term need for dwellings for agricultural workers and that the dwelling no longer needs reserving for that purpose. 6.17 The Agricultural Advisor has carried out an assessment of the land available and suggests that the current level of activity does not justify an agricultural dwelling. He has indicated that if there were stock on the land then this would be added to the calculation. Whilst the amount of land currently associated with the dwelling may not justify an agricultural dwelling, at the time of the approval there was additional land within the ownership of the applicant, it is believed that this land was sold off separately from the dwelling and not sold to the current owner. 6.18 Whilst there is limited land associated with the dwelling, the land and the dwelling could be purchased by a farmer who already has land or is renting land.
6.19 There has been no information provided demonstrating that there is no longer a need for agricultural dwellings in this locality or the surrounding area in general. It would not appear that the property has been advertised with the agricultural occupancy condition at a price achievable to an agricultural worker. As mentioned above such conditions will not usually be removed unless it is demonstrated that there is no long term need for the reservation of the dwellings for this purpose. 6.20 The applicant has stated in the information provided that she has never been employed in agriculture and has not received an income from agricultural activities during her residence at the property. Whilst the applicant may not be involved with agriculture and the site is no longer a working farm there is approximately 17.08 ha of land within the red line on the location plan and is still available to the wider agricultural community. The occupation of the dwelling by an agricultural worker could avoid the need for a new agricultural dwelling elsewhere. 6.21 The main farmhouse is a sizeable dwelling, while no information regarding the property has been submitted with the application it is available to view on one of the local estate agency websites at a value of $£ 2.5$ million; it is unlikely that this is within the reach of an agricultural worker. 6.22 The dwelling is a large detached country house with approximately 42acres. 6.23 Whilst the applicant has indicated that they were not aware of the agricultural occupancy condition before purchasing the property this should have been uncovered through a thorough search by their advocate. Whilst there is some sympathy with the applicant's situation it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there is no longer a long term need for agricultural dwellings on this farm or the wider locality in general. 6.24 For the above reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and is recommended for refusal.
7.1 The local authority, Malew Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 7.2 The Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded interested person status. 7.3 The owner/occupier of Glebe Cottage, Maughold is not considered an "interested person" under the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and as such is not afforded interested person status. 7.4 The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture is not considered an "interested person" under the criteria set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and as such is not afforded interested person status.
R 1. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the property is no longer required for occupation by an agricultural worker in the Island. Accordingly the removal of the agricultural tie is insufficiently justified. The proposal therefore fails to accord with policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 that seek to control development in the countryside, having particular regard to paragraph 8.9.4, which states that agricultural occupancy conditions should '...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.'
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
