Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling located to the north of the B30 highway between the Ballamodha Straight and St. Mark's village. The site is accessed via a farm lane which passes through a farm complex before reaching the dwelling which is the subject of this application. The dwelling is a bungalow, approved under PA 84/00136 where conditions of this approval required that the dwelling be occupied by a farm worker and also that it may not be let or sold of separate from Gibdale Farm. This was altered and extended under PA 90/1327.
This application now seeks permission for the removal of the agricultural worker's occupancy condition.
The property has been marketed by Dean Wood between February and July of this year at a value of £850,000. The letter from Dean Wood state that two separate Island farmers viewed the property and were not interested in paying more than £600,000. Non-Island farmers offered up to £750,000. An offer of £850,000 was accepted but this is dependent upon the removal of the tie. This does not make
sense as if the tie is removed, surely the property is worth more and the applicant would not be prepared to accept the asking price which should reflect the agricultural occupancy tie.
Since the building was converted, the farmland associated with the dwelling has been farmed in association with land in the UK. 75 acres only remain with the property. The applicant states that the estate agent has found it difficult to market the property with the agricultural tie. However, the evidence produced would suggest that the interest is there but the price is too high.
Malew Commissioners object to the application although they do not state why.
Planning permission was granted for the conversion of a barn to living accommodation associated with Gibdale Farm under PA 01/0677 although no agricultural or other justification was given for this. Support for the application came on the basis of the quality of the building rather than the justification for the new accommodation. This barn is approximately 40m from the application building.
Only one of the photographs of the site, provided with the sales literature show the bungalow. The site offered for sale includes the bungalow, the converted barn, indoor swimming pool with recreational facilities, integral garage and "derelict cottage with planning consent" to the north of the complex. This permission for reinstatement of the cottage to tourist accommodation was granted on review under PA 02/2162.
The position now I suppose is that the site comprises so much other accommodation and facilities that the farm worker's bungalow is unlikely to be marketable on its own and the rest of the buildings add so much extra value to the site that an agricultural worker would be unable to afford it. All of the buildings are so close together that it is unlikely that a farm worker would occupy the farm dwelling other than in association with the occupation of the main dwelling. Correspondence on PA 01/0677 suggests that a prospective purchaser would like to buy the property and have their daughter reside in the bungalow and the purchasers live in the converted barn and together they would continue to farm the land with the third party who is presently involved. The applicant's letter of 14th July, 2004 suggests however that the prospective purchaser will live in the barn and have their mother live in the bungalow and continue to have a local farmer looking after the grazing and stocking of the land.
The information provided in respect of the marketing of the site suggest that there is interest in the property even with the tie and as such there is no reason to remove the tie and no evidence that the price reflects the tie.
Recommended Decision : Refused
Date of Recommendation : 25.10.2004
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The information provided with the application indicates that there is interest in the purchase of the property with the tie, albeit at a reduce price. As such there is evidence to suggest that this property may still be required for agricultural occupation and as such the removal of the tie would be unwarranted and would represent the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside where such would normally be resisted.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
