Loading document...
W.B.Vannan D.A.[Edin.] Dip.T&C.P.[Edin.] Planning & Architectural Consultant Cronk na Quill Old Laxey Hill Laxey Isle of Man IM47DA Tel.[01624] 861013 e-mail [email protected]
5th. February 2007
Tramman, Ballamanaugh Road, Sulby, IM72HD, Isle of Man. Planning Application to remove Agricultural Worker’s Condition with regard to the above property.
As a Planning and Architectural Consultant I have been appointed to request the removal of the restrictive Condition which applies to the above property. This Submission forms part of the Planning Application under Section 16 of the Application Form.
The Submission comprises comment and background information which includes the following:
1.0 The site is located in the Sulby area of the Parish of Lezayre and is accessed by the Ballamanaugh Road. 1.1 The property sits in it’s own grounds which are some 0.175 ha. [ 0.45 acre ] in area. 1.2 The dwelling is large, comprising four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a large lounge, a dining room, a generous kitchen and utility area, an office and an attached double garage with access from the house. 1.3 The details of the above are included as Appendix 3 [ PA 84/82].
RECEIVED ON -5 FEB 2007 DEPT. OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICE
1.
2.0 Two Planning Applications relate to this property, namely: a] PA 83/1463. and, b] PA 84/82.
2.1 PA 83/1463
2.2 This was an Application in Principle to erect a dwelling and garage, Field No. 1774, Ballamanaugh, Sulby, Lezayre. 2.2 This was approved on the 9th. December 1983 subject to a number of Conditions including the Standard Condition in relation to agricultural worker’s occupancy [Appendix 2]. 2.3 This Standard Condition did however supersede the Condition recommended by the Planning Officer which stared: “To be occupied by new farm manager in charge of all companies and considerable holdings in the north of the Island - part of the reorganisation and improvement of Ballamanaugh Estate. 2.4 This recommended Condition was not maintained [ probably due to it not being enforceable under Planning Legislation ]. 2.5 It does however indicate the reason for the dwelling being designed to such a high standard of accommodation for the use of senior management as opposed to an average agricultural worker. 2.6 The size of the proposal was also queried by the Lezayre Commissioners who Refused it [Appendix 3]. 2.7 A handwritten note on that Refusal includes: “Dwelling is very large for farm dwelling”.
Comment. It is evident that the property was never intended for the use of an agricultural worker as such.
2.8 PA 84/82.
2.9 This Application was in Detail and built upon the Approval in Principle under PA 83/ 1463. 2.10 Extracts from the proposed plans and elevations form Appendix 3. 2.10 Conditions were attached and those relevant form Appendix 4. 2.11 The Approval was subject to Condition [7]: “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.”
2.12 The Approval was also subject to Condition [8]:
"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 including also the descendants of such persons as aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee".
Comment.
Whilst the validity of the above Conditions could be challenged in the present climate the intention was clear.
Similar cases in the area.
3.1 It is relevant to note the decisions in relation to two previous Applications for the removal of farm worker’s Conditions in Lezayre. 3.2 It is not suggested that these should be considered as precedents but there are specific points and issues which are relative to this current Application.
3.3 PA 01/2692 At Appeal. 3.4 Proposed Change of use of dwelling to remove agricultural tie, Lower Glentramman Farm. 3.5 In the Minister’s decision [which did not accord with the recommendation by the inspector for refusal] she stated that: “The Minister has also noted the appointed person’s more general recommendation in respect of enforcement and policy in relation to agricultural occupancy conditions. These matters are being considered by the Department during its formulation of the Island’s Strategic Plan.” 3.6 In paragraph 21 of the report the inspector stated: “I also suggest that the Planning Committee should urgently review their policy in respect of their policy in respect of the enforcement of conditions attached to planning permissions, as well as a revised policy statement stating their position in respect of the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions, particularly those of some age”.
Comment.
3.7 It appears that neither has the Strategic Plan referred to the matter of agricultural conditions nor has the Planning Committee issued policy guidance on the issue.
3.8 In the Case for the Planning Committee at the Appeal it was stated that: "The current practice in dealing with the removal of such conditions is to require an applicant to demonstrate that the long-term need for such a dwelling no longer warrants reserving the dwelling as a tied cottage. This is usually done by marketing the property at a discount of about 15-20% to reflect the difference between the market value and that with the condition attached"
Comment.
3.9 It should be noted that the reference is to practice and not to policy nor guidance notes. It is however not unreasonable for the Applicant to demonstrate that a dwelling is no longer required for an agricultural worker.
3.10 It is interesting the reference to “the dwelling as a tied cottage”. This reinforces the feeling that such dwellings should be comparatively modest in scale as opposed to the size and scale of the house subject of this Application.
3.11 PA 03/01972 3.12 Proposed removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling approved under PA 83/00097B. 3.13 This was approved by the Planning Committee on the 19th. March, 2004 and included one Condition:
“1. This approval permits the change of use of the new house from a dwelling with agricultural occupancy condition to a private dwelling with no such condition”.
Comment.
3.14 It should be noted that this Approval related to a large dwelling in its own grounds and was of such value as to be beyond the reach of an agricultural worker.
3.15 It is suggested that there are strong parallels between that Application and this current Application.
Advertisement.
4.1 The property was advertised for sale by Island Property Consultants with a clear statement that the property was subject to “a tithe and that only persons with a Farming or Horticulture work place need apply”.
The advertisement forms Appendix 5.
4.2 Tramman was advertised on ‘a price on application basis’ from 16th. March 2006. Island Properties have advised that there has been no interest in the property with the exception of people that may be suitable tenants but do
not have an agricultural background".
4.3 This has been confirmed by the Letting Agents who state that "We have been marketing the property known as Tramman on the Ballamanaugh Estate, Sulby, Isle of Man since December 05. In that time we have had quite a few enquiries but the prospective tenants did not have the correct status for this property, this property having a tithe. Whilst we are happy to advertise Tramman the chances of getting a suitable tenant are remote."
4.2 The advice given based in part upon the history of the tenancy of the site clearly demonstrates that the property has been marketed for over a year for the benefit of an agricultural worker but without success. 4.3 It thus also clearly demonstrates that the property is not within the financial reach of such a person. 4.4 It also clarifies the situation with regard to the fact that it is no longer connected with Ballamanaugh farm, the present tenant farmer occupying the farmhouse at Ballamanaugh.
6.1 From the Planning history of the site and the Planning Approvals it is clear that Tramman was intended and designed for a person in a Senior Management position and is therefore of such a scale as not being appropriate for an agricultural worker as such. 6.2 It is also clear that it is beyond the reach of such a person in financial terms and that no interest has been shown by a person who would meet the criteria of the Agricultural Condition. 6.3 The property has been marketed with the Condition being clearly emphasised for over a year in accordance with the principles required by the Planning Authority but with no interest being shown by an appropriate person. 6.4 The realistic solution with regard to the future of the property, both in terms of ownership and maintenance is therefore to advise it for sale on the open market with the removal of the Condition. 6.5 This would clearly contribute to the provision of housing stock in this category and reduce the demand for new-build and the removal of the Condition should therefore be seen to be beneficial.
W.B.Vannan.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
