DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/00167/B Applicant: Mr John Moore Proposal: Removal of condition numbers 6, 7 & 8 of application IDO 34987 relating to the use and occupation of the dwelling Site Address: Hillcrest Balnahowe Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1HN Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 03.10.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. Insufficient information has been provided clearly evidencing that there no longer remains a long-term need for the dwelling to be reserved for agricultural workers in the locality. The application has therefore not fully satisfied the requirements of Housing Policy 8 and its associated text within the Strategic Plan (2016) to justify the removal of the dwelling's agricultural tie.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Southampton Farm, Quines Hill, Port Soderick

is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the detached bungalow of Hillcrest, a dwelling approved in 1973 with an agricultural tie, and the wider present holding extending to approximately 25 acres. The majority of the holding, including the adjacent agricultural building, is located on the southern side of the access road leading eastward to Balnahow Farm, with a smaller portion falling on the northern side. - 1.2 The site and associated land once formed part of the wider agricultural holding associated with Balnahow Farm, which has since been divided following the passing of family members and inheritance or sale of different portions of the holding to various members of the wider family and/or third parties. It is noted from the submitted planning statement that the applicant purchased the final share of the property from the widow of his late brother in 2016 and received the corresponding 25 acres of land surrounding the dwelling as part of a family settlement. - 1.3 The remainder of Balnahow, including the farmhouse, are noted to have been sold to the farmer at Southampton Farm whose company sold the farmhouse and buildings to developers but retained the surrounding agricultural land. Whilst the applicant has retained Hillcrest and the surrounding 25 acres, the remainder of the land associated with the wider former holding is managed in association with other neighbouring farms; Ballashamrock and Southampton Farms.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks the removal of 3 conditions attached to the original planning permission for the dwelling (IDO 34987), which read as follows:

• 6 (Standard agricultural worker's condition)
• 7 The proposed dwelling must be retained as part of the agricultural holding and

not be sold or let off separately

• 8 This permission for the residential use of the land shall not be exercised by any

other persons than Mr. F. Moore.

2.2 The application is submitted on the basis, as presented in the accompanying planning statement, that there is no longer an identifiable need for agricultural workers dwellings in the area as those working on adjacent farms have sufficient accommodation. It has also been submitted that resultant land associated with Hillcrest is insufficient on its own for a full time worker. - 2.3 Various examples of dwellings with their agricultural tiers having been removed in recent years within relative proximity to the site have been presented as part of this submission, in an effort to justify that there is no identifiable need for the property to be tied for use and occupancy by an agricultural worker or indeed be specifically reserved for that purpose. - 2.4 Furthermore, the owners of the nearby Oatlands Farm and Southampton/Ballashamrock Farms were contacted to ascertain if they had a desire or need to purchase the property for use as a rural worker's dwelling. Whilst no response was received from Oatlands Farm, a response was received from the owner of Southampton Farm which advised the following:

"Thank you for your letter dated 04/10/21 regarding the intent to make an application for removal of the planning conditions currently applicable to Hillcrest, Balnahow Farm.

Subsequent to the dwellings being built at both Southampton Farm and Ballashamrock Farm, we have expanded the farm size considerably with the purchase of the majority of the land associated with Balnahow Farm. If any housing with an agricultural occupancy tie applicable to

it were to become available within the area, we would consider our options available at that time."

2.5 The planning statement continues by considering that if there had been a need for additional housing in association with Ballashamrock and Southampton Farms, then a dwelling (Balnahow farmhouse) and a range of outbuildings suitable for conversion were available when the wider holding was purchased, but were subsequently sold off to a developer. The statement considers that this evidences at that present time there was no requirement for a further agricultural dwelling or dwellings. - 2.6 The statement advises that, in the opinion of the applicants, the situation has not changed since the sale of Balnahow Farm and in conjunction with the removal of agricultural ties for Withaney and Thie ny Hawin, thus confirming that there is no longer a requirements for agricultural/rural worker's dwellings in the locality. Moreover, the nature of farming and the management of land is considered to have changed over time and such that most farms make use of contractors for many jobs, thus reducing the need for permanent staff and housing on site. - 2.7 Finally, the statement notes that whilst the property has not been marketed to ascertain whether there is any demand for the property, it is not the applicant's intention to sell the property at the present time and therefore it would be disingenuous to put the property on the market. Their intention is get things in order for their future and seek to have the property unencumbered by restrictive conditions when the property needs to be sold off, either due to a lack of requirement for living there or to move at some point if they choose to.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Planning permission was granted for the original dwelling in 1973 (IDO 34987) which included the attachment of a number of conditions to the permission, 3 of which are proposed for removal as part of this current submission. - 3.2 Various dwellings in close proximity to the site have been approved over the years with agricultural ties, including Greenfields, Withaney, Thie ny Hawin, Balnahow farmhouse and Ballacregga farmhouse; most of which have since lost their ties either through the grant of planning permission or, in the case of Ballacregga Farm, the grant of a Certificate of Lawfulness for use of the property as a private dwelling. - 3.3 More recently, permission was granted for an agricultural building immediately adjacent to the east of Hillcrest (PA 16/01084/B) within a site of approximately 9 acres. The site is under the same ownership of Hillcrest and forms part of the wider holding of approximately 25 acres spread over 4 fields. It is not clear in the submission as to the exact purpose of the agricultural building, but it is assumed it would be used for storage purposes in connection with the applicant's wider holding for the purposes of animal grazing.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site falls outside of a defined settlement within the countryside and therefore an area not zoned for development within the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Footpath 118 (Public Right of Way) which forms part of the Raad ny Foillan coastal path passes the property along the site's northern boundary and then south-eastward past the agricultural building. - 4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

• 1 Efficient use of land and resources
• 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages

Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3

General Policy

• 2 General Development Considerations
• 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside

Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside

Housing Policy

• 4 Exceptions to allowing new housing in the countryside

• 7 New agricultural dwellings
• 8 Restrictive conditions for agricultural dwellings

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Santon Commissioners - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.2 Manx Utilities - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.3 Planning Enforcement Officer - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.4 Highway Services do not object to the proposals (no highways interest) - 16.02.22 - 5.5 A letter of representation was received from the Director of Ballashamrock Farm Ltd, who notes that they were contacted by the agent for the planning application and provided a copy of their response to the agent in their representation (as noted at para. 2.4 of this report). They state that they own the land associated with Balnahow Farm, whilst also farming the land at Southampton, Ballashamrock, Lhergy and Ballakelly Farms under tenanted agreements but which they do not own directly. - 5.6 The letter notes that in the short term they do not require additional housing, but are unsure as to what housing may be required in the future as they look to continue growing the business. They further state that whilst neither in support nor against the application, they do not wish to prejudice any future application or possible needs for the use of a tied dwelling in the vicinity by not making a representation.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 With respect to conditions 7 and 8 attached to the original planning permission in 1973, it is clear that neither condition can be complied with and indeed such conditions (particularly a personal one as per condition 8), would unlikely now be attached to planning permissions given their impracticality and general unenforceability. The removal of such conditions are therefore not objected to in principle. - 6.2 Whilst the exact wording for condition 6 is unavailable, it is clear that this condition relates to an agricultural tie, the principle of which is still commonly used in accordance with Housing Policy 8 and indeed remains enforceable. The requested removal of this condition therefore requires scrutiny in accordance with the Strategic Plan (2016). - 6.3 In this instance, the justification provided in the submitted planning statement is noted, particularly in relation to dwellings within the vicinity which have had agricultural ties removed, together with the history of Balnahow Farm and the subdivision of the original holding. - 6.4 In the case of Withanley (PA 16/00330/B), the removal of the agricultural tie was done so partly on the basis that the property had been marketed but that no interest had been

• shown by persons who would qualify to occupy the property in accordance with the requirements of the restrictive condition. It was further considered in the officer report that; "there is unlikely to be a requirement for further dwellings as the land available is already being farmed by people with adequate accommodation available to them, and in some cases with additional dwellings being available to them if required."
• 6.5 With respect to Thie ny Hawin, a similar assessment was undertaken by the case officer, noting that the property had also been marketed but that no interest had been shown by persons who would qualify to occupy the property in accordance with the requirements of the restrictive condition. Moreover, it was further noted that; "the applicant has not been employed in agriculture since 1995. If an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Use had been submitted rather than an application for removal of the agricultural occupancy condition, then it is likely that such would have been granted, allowing the property to continue to be occupied as an unrestricted private residence."
• 6.6 When viewing the application for the removal of the agricultural tie for Greenfield (PA 15/00641/B), it is evident from the submitted forms that whilst the property had not been formally marketed, a verbal offer had been received for the property from the owner of Ballacregga Farm, but which had been rejected as being too low. The forms state that value of the property at the time with the condition had been £280,000, but no information was provided on the value of the submitted verbal offer. The application was subsequently withdrawn and therefore undermined, for reasons which are not apparent.
• 6.7 It is clear that the history of the above sites, and indeed the property which is the subject of this application, remain generally intertwined and fairly complex. However, the fact remains that the property is still occupied by members of the original family, with the surrounding 25 acres associated with Hillcrest presently farmed for grazing. The present occupants are noted within the accompanying statement as being elderly, albeit no indication is provided that they now wish to retire from agriculture, and that none of their 3 children are currently engaged in agriculture or indeed likely to be in the future.
• 6.8 Notwithstanding this however, the property is currently restricted to occupants engaged in agriculture and therefore presently reserved for agricultural/rural workers. The dwelling is therefore of a lower market value than one of a comparable size without such a restriction, and therefore remains more affordable to any future prospective occupants engaged in agricultural activities.
• 6.9 The property is noted as not having been marketed for this purpose, with the current occupants still residing in the property, engaged in agriculture with no clear intention to retire at this stage. It is therefore difficult to fully agree with the assertion put forward that a need no longer remains for the property to be restricted to those engaged in agricultural activities, which was the entire pretence upon which the construction of this property was allowed in the first instance.
• 6.10 The applicant's case is, unfortunately, further undermined by the representation received by the Director of Ballashamrock Farm Ltd which infers that a need for a such a dwelling could arise in the future, and indeed they would consider their options if the property should be marketed. They, like other potential prospective owners who meet the requirements of the condition, have not been afforded the opportunity to express their interest in the property.
• 6.11 Whilst it is fully understood why the applicants would not wish to market the property at the present time given their intention to continue residing in the dwelling, this suggests that there is no present need for the agricultural tie to be removed from the property, and the dwelling should instead remain with its current restriction and subsequently appropriately marketed at a time when the current occupants no longer have a need to reside there.

6.12 In this instance, whilst a case could be argued that the size of the holding no longer merits the siting of an agricultural workers dwelling, the fact remains that a dwelling is in situ on the land, and in any case it is not considered that a sufficiently robust argument has been put forward to fully evidence that an agricultural workers dwelling would no longer be required to serve the 25 acre holding, as it clearly does at present. Likewise, again insufficient evidence has been presented clearly demonstrating that such a need for an agricultural workers dwelling remains in the locality of the site or in Santon Parish. - 6.13 Housing Policy 8 clearly states that; "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." - 6.14 Paragraph 8.9.4 of the Strategic Plan (2016) which immediately follows Housing Policy

8 adds that; "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."

6.15 In the case of this submission, the above tests evidencing the lack of need for the restrictive tie to remain on the property have not been fully met, and therefore the application to remove such conditions from the original 1973 permission cannot be supported.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 Insufficient information has been provided clearly evidencing that there no longer remains a long-term need for the dwelling to be reserved for agricultural workers in the locality. The application has therefore not fully satisfied the requirements of Housing Policy 8 and its associated text within the Strategic Plan (2016) to justify the removal of the dwelling's agricultural tie. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this

decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 06.10.2022 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/ customers and archive records.