Loading document...
Application No.: 07/00216/B Applicant: Mr G A & Mrs E Moore Proposal: Removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling Site Address: - Tramman - Ballamanagh Road - Sulby - Isle Of Man - IM7 2HD ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 30/04/07 Site Visit: 30/04/07 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations - PMCS Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare | Supports the proposal ### Consultations Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Lezayre Parish Commissioners Notes: Refuse Consultee: IOM Water Authority Notes: Note to be included Consultee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes:** Comments received
The application site forms the curtilage of Tramman (0.45 acre), Ballamanagh Road, Sulby. It is a two storey detached property located on the western side of the Ballamanagh Road and south of Sulby Village.
20 June 2007 07/00216/B Page 1 of 7
The site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Order 1982 as being within an area of 'woodland'; the site is not within a Conservation Area but is within an area of high landscape value or coastal value and scenic significance.
Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings - Paragraph 6
Erection of a dwelling, field 1774, Ballamanaugh, Sulby, Lezayre (84/00082/B) - APPROVED Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling and garage (83/1463/A) - APPROVED Extension to form orangary, Ballamanaugh, Sulby, Lezayre (85/01183/B) - APPROVED
The application proposes the removal of agricultural workers condition.
Lezayre Parish Commissioners have objected on the grounds that:-
No reasons are given for the fact that the house is no longer required as an agricultural dwelling. We still receive planning applications for such dwellings.
Highways Division:-
Do not oppose
S.P.M.C. & E:-
Built (and approved) as a Farm Manager's House, why is it no longer required by the Estate? This is not really made clear and there are no details of what is to become of the farm.
No evidence of attempts to sell at a suitably discounted price. Therefore we Strongly Object.
It is noticed that we still get applications for farm worker's dwellings in Lezayre and other northern Parishes, so it cannot be argued that there is no demand if the price is right.
The IOM Water Authority make no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
Mr Jessop has commented on the planning application, which can be summarised as, no objection to this application on the basis of the submitted evidence.
An Approval in Principle (83/1463) was approved for the erection of a dwelling and garage on the 9th December 1983 subject to a number of conditions, one of which stated:-
A further detailed application was submitted (84/82) which was approved for the erection of a dwelling and garage subject to a number of conditions, two of which stated:-
20 June 2007
The Government practice is for the property to be put on the property market at a reduced sum of between and for a period of at least 6 months. The submission states that the property was advertised for rent in addition to being available for purchase, "price on application" in order to explore all options to ensure continued occupation and maintenance of the house. The Agent for the Applicant states that the "the property was originally estimated as having a calendar monthly rental value of £ 950, (including rates), with the tie attached. Without the agricultural condition it was estimated that it would have been £ 1200. The difference would therefore be in the region of of the actual market value and this would have been reflected in any final property valuation. No interest was however expressed as a result of the Condition and therefore no price was fixed since this would have been open to negotiation".
The agricultural dwelling has been advertised for sale since the 16th March 2006 by Island Properties on a "price on application basis". The sale advertisement did state that the property was for agricultural workers only. The estate agents have advised that there has been no interest in the property with the exception of people that may by suitable tenants but do not have an agricultural background.
Planning Circular 3/88 - New Agricultural Dwellings is the relevant policy when considering this application. Paragraph 6 of this Circular state:-
Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the following condition will be attached:-
The occupation of the proposed dwelling(s) 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.
Such a condition will not usually be removed on subsequent application 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.
Richard Lole the Authorities Agricultural Adviser has stated that a typical annual income from employment in agriculture would range from depending on responsibility, with most at the lower end. However it is also important to acknowledge that a farmer could look to purchase a property of this nature and their profits would range from considerable deficits to occasionally , with a typical range of probably .
A similar application 06/01343/B (Removal of a agricultural tie on property - Shady Moar, Shore Road, Glen Maye) was recently refused at appeal. The application was offered for sale for a period of at least six months; however the advertised valuation of the property was not discounted to take the agricultural tie into consideration and therefore the application was refused on the grounds that:- There is in the submitted application insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is not in the area around the site an existing or foreseeable demand for workers' accommodation.
The Appeal Inspector stated that:- "The policy for removing such a condition is set out in paragraph 6 of Circular 3/88. It must be shown that the long-term need for accommodation for agricultural workers, both on the
particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants the reservation of the dwelling for that purpose. In view, of this, the fact that Ballakerkey Farm is no longer viable agricultural enterprise is not sufficient to justify the removal of the condition. The test is whether there is a continuing need for the appeal premises to be reserved to meet the requirements of agricultural workers in the locality."
The Inspector goes on to state:-
"In my view, in order to establish whether there is a demand for agricultural workers' accommodation, it is necessary that the property should be marketed at a price that an agricultural worker could reasonably be expected to afford. Given the scale of the difference between the open market valuation of "Shady Moar" and the level of agricultural incomes on the Island, it seems to me that a substantial discount in the market valuation would be necessary to provide a realistic test of need. The evidence of Mr Anderson MHK is that most farm workers are now looking for rented property. If that is the case, need might also be tested by offering the property for rental."
With this current application as stated previously the Applicant has advertised the property for rental and for sale, for a period of at least six months and indicated that the property has an agricultural tie attached to the property. However the concern I have is that a fixed reduced price taking the tie into consideration was not advertised, but the property was only advertised on a "price on application" basis. The Applicants have indicated that no persons expressed any interest for the property with the tie and therefore no price was fixed since this would have been open to negotiation.
With regard to the rental price of £950 per month, this equates to £11400 per year, which for agricultural workers which earn between £12k-28k depending on responsibility (with most at the lower end) and a farmer with a typical range of probably £10k - £35k, it might be considered to be unrealistic and an unaffordable price to pay.
I personally consider that the property even with the Planning Authority's practice of reducing the value by 25% or 30%, the property would still possibly be outside the reasonable financial reaches of agricultural workers and/or farmers, a point which the Applicants have indicated with a similar case with application 03/01972/B which was approved by the Planning Committee on the 19th march 2004 for the removal of an agricultural tie.
However the practice of the Planning Authority for a 25% to 30% price deduction was not advertised during the required 6 month period. Whilst I consider the removal of the tie in principle would be acceptable I have concerns the information provided does not prove in the submitted application there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no further need for agricultural workers' accommodation in this locality.
For these reasons the proposal would seem inappropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is for a refusal. PARTY STATUS I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
Lezayre Parish Commissioners Highways Division
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
IOM Water Authority S.P.M.C. & E
20 June 2007
Since the deferral request at the previous Planning Committee ( 29th June 2007) the Applicant has written to the Planning Authority to clarify the points of contention.
Their letter states that:- "Dealing firstly with the general justification for the removal of the tie, the property was, as you are aware, constructed pursuant to approval granted under PA84/00082/8 and, at that time, the property was attached to and used for the purposes of the Ballamanaugh estate. However, in recent years, the management of the estate has changed considerably as circumstances in agriculture have also changed. As a result, in 2003, the farming operation of Ballamanaugh Farms Limited was curtailed and the agricultural land let pursuant to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1969 to Mr Andrew Sanders. Mr Sanders already operated a successful farm in Baldwin and wished to expand that operation to the significant lands owned by Ballamanaugh Properties Limited in the north of the Island.
The three agricultural properties associated with this land are Ballamanaugh Farmhouse, Shepherd's Bungalow and Tramman. Mr Sanders continues to reside at his own farm Ballalough and has rented Ballamanaugh Farmhouse where his son (who manages the Ballamanaugh land) resides and also Shepherd's Bungalow where a further agricultural worker employed by Mr Sanders resides.
Mr Sanders has no requirement for Tramman and, as such, the property has been isolated from the agricultural land to which it is historically attached.
In terms of Planning Circular 3/88 and the needs of the "particular farm" therefore, it is apparent that the long term need no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for agricultural workers.
Similarly, the agricultural land in the locality is dominated by the Ballamanaugh estate and, as such, there is no apparent need for the property as an agricultural dwelling in the wider area beyond the farm. There have been no expressions of interest in the property from any adjoining landowners."
The letter goes on to state:- "Turning now to your specific concern relating to the marketing of the property by way of "price on application", I note in your report you refer to Government practice that a property should be put on the market at a reduced sum of between and for a period of at least six months. As you are aware, the property has been actively marketed for in excess of that period and, during that time, there has been no expression of interest in the property from any agricultural workers.
Whilst you refer to the Government practice with regards to price reduction, you also refer to the Inspector's report in respect of planning application 06/01343/C relating to Shady Moar in Glen Maye. In his report, the Inspector refers to "a substantial discount in the market valuation... to provide a realistic test of need" and in consequence of this you state that the estimated rental price of £ 950 per month (which is in accordance with Government practice) may be an unrealistic price when compared to the typical gross earnings of an agricultural worker.
It is my view however that the marketing of the property by way of "price on application" is the most effective way of testing the market and was a course adopted by my clients in order that any potential agricultural tenants would not be deterred at the outset by what you acknowledge may be an unrealistic estimate of price in comparison to their income. As my clients' agent states, the estimate of £ 950 per calendar month was open to negotiation had
there been any interest in the property at all. The marketing of the property by way of "price on application" therefore was designed to give my clients the flexibility to meet the needs of agricultural workers without potentially deterring them by the statement of a fixed price. This approach effectively counters the apparent discrepancy between the Government practice of reducing the market value by and the reality of the situation whereby, even with such a reduction, the property would still likely be unaffordable to agricultural workers.
Contrary to being a disadvantage therefore, I consider that the marketing of the property by way of "price on application" when coupled with the fact that the property was clearly marketed as an agricultural property, is a much fairer way to test the need for agricultural dwellings than stating a price which may be reduced in accordance with Government practice but which is still unaffordable to agricultural workers.
The fact of the matter therefore remains that despite the property being marketed for a period in excess of six months and despite the property being marketed in such a way as not to deter potential agricultural tenants, there have been no expressions of interest from agricultural workers.
In light of the above and the submissions already put forward by Mr Vannan therefore, I would seek to persuade you that my clients have made every effort to let this property in accordance with its agricultural tie but, following extensive marketing of the property for this purpose, it should be concluded that, in light of the circumstances relating to this particular farm and the locality, there is no long term need for this dwelling for agricultural workers and, as such, the reservation of the property for that purpose is no longer warranted."
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 18.06.2007
There is in the submitted application insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no further need for agricultural workers' accommodation in this locality.
Evidence of the marketing of the dwelling indicates that it has not been valued having regard to this constraint on its use; the Department's usual practice in these matters is to require that the dwelling in question is offered for sale as a farmworker's dwelling, at a discounted valuation (usually approximately of the free market valuation), and for a period of at least six months.
20 June 2007 07/00216/B Page 7 of 7
Mr W B Vannan Cronk Na Quill Old Laxey Hill Laxey IM4 7DA
In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the PLANNING COMMITTEE of the Department of Local Government and the Environment does hereby REFUSE the following application made on behalf of:
Name: Mr G A & Mrs E Moore Proposal: Removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling at:
which was considered on 19th July 2007, for the reasons set out below.
Date of Issue: 24th July 2007
Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
Deputy Secretary Planning Committee
NOTE 1. Evidence of the marketing of the dwelling indicates that it has not been valued having regard to this constraint on its use; the Department's usual practice in these matters is to require that the dwelling in question is offered for sale as a farmworker's dwelling, at a discounted valuation (usually approximately 25 - 30 % of the free market valuation), and for a period of at least six months.
This decision was made by the Planning Committee constituted in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.
The decision contained in this notice does not become final until either;
Whichever is the later. Any appeal against this decision must be in writing and must be received by this Department within 21 days of the date of this notice.
A form and guidance notes are available from either the Planning Office, Tel 685950, or to download from the Department's website www.gov.im/ dlge/planning/plan
A copy of the Officer's report, which led to this decision, is attached for reference. This report, together with correspondence relative to the application, is available for inspection by anyone wishing to view it at the Department.
If the Inspector is minded to recommend to the Minister that the application is approved, the Department would suggest that the following conditions and notes are attached to the approval notice: a. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. b. This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing T/1, and on 5th February 2007.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
