REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY MRS CATHERINE TATE AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY CONDITION AT GRENABY FARM, GRENABY, BALLASALLA, ISLE OF MAN

I held an inquiry into this appeal on 24 June 2014 following a site visit on 23 June. The following persons appeared at the inquiry:

| For the Appellant: | Mrs C Tate | | --- | --- | | | Mr A Tate | | For the Planning Authority: | Ms Laura Davey |

THE APPEAL SITE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The appeal site comprises land to either side of Kerrowkeil Road (B41), commencing about 120m north of the junction with Ballamaddrell Road (B40) where Kerrowkeil Road crosses the Silver Burn. This watercourse forms the southern boundary of the farm. The holding is known as Grenaby Farm. It is stated to total about 17ha (42 acres) of land. The group of buildings associated with the farm lies on the west side of Kerrowkeil Road, and includes the farmhouse which is tied by the agricultural occupancy condition subject of this appeal. There is a second dwelling which was created by the conversion of a barn (approved under PA05/00217/B).
The proposal is for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition attached to the approval granted under PA93/0286 for "erection of new farmhouse and alterations and provision of new agricultural buildings". This was condition 1 and stated "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 including also the dependents of such persons aforesaid". The appeal seeks to allow occupation of the dwelling without complying with this occupancy restriction.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

The main points are:

The property was purchased for £2.2m in January 2005. The vendors and the selling agents did not inform the appellant of the existence of the occupancy condition and this was not found by her conveyancer. The property search undertaken with the Planning Division of the Department of Local Government and the Environment did not reveal the condition, and the advocate did not follow up to obtain a full copy of the approval notice. Two surveyors who surveyed the property in connection with obtaining finance for the purchase were not aware of the condition. The condition only came to light in November 2013, when conveyancing in connection with a sale of the property was being undertaken.
The appellant and her then husband have never been in agricultural employment, and the condition has not been complied with during the period of their occupation over the last 9 years. No questions have ever been raised with the appellant about this matter, and the Planning Authority has never sought to enforce the condition. The Authority had another opportunity to review the site and its usage when approval was sought and granted to convert the barn in 2005. No breach of the occupancy condition was revealed at that time, and no enforcement action was ever taken. No agricultural occupancy condition was placed on the converted barn.
It is questioned whether an agricultural worker would seek to play over £1m for this property, which is expensive to occupy and maintain. Of the total land, only 37.7 acres is farmable. This land is not

Appeal No. AP14/0028

Page 1

sufficient to provide a viable farm holding. It is not believed that there are any retired or former farmers who would commit to purchase this type of property. Professional advisers have indicated that they would advise against the purchase of the property with the occupancy condition, due to the difficulties of obtaining a mortgage and the limited potential for re-sale. 7. With respect to General Policy 3(a) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan"), the farmhouse cannot be regarded as essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work, as the Agricultural Advisor of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture ("DEFA") has assessed that the land available would not sustain a living and does not justify a dwelling. With reference to Housing Policy 7, the exceptional circumstances of real agricultural need required to justify new agricultural dwellings has clearly not existed during the 9 years of the appellant's occupation of the property. There are no specific policies in the Strategic Plan relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions with which the appellant could comply. 8. The property has been on the market since 2008. After price reductions, an offer of £ 1.9925 \mathrm{~m} was received in September 2013. No interest has been shown by any agricultural workers during the period when the property has been advertised for sale. The test of agricultural need used historically, involving offering a property at a 25-30 % reduction for a 6 month period, was more relevant when dwellings were smaller and cheaper. It is an inappropriate test in the case of this property. 9. Malew Parish Commissioners did not object, and there have been no other objections. The property is clearly no longer required for occupation by an agricultural worker. The appeal should be allowed. 10. (Inspector's Note: A copy of the sales particulars prepared by the appellant's estate agent has been provided with the appeal papers. These state an asking price for the farm of £ 2.5 \mathrm{~m}, and indicate that the main farmhouse includes 6 bedrooms ( 2 with en-suite facilities), 4 reception rooms, conservatory, games room, breakfast kitchen, 2 other bathrooms and a shower room.)

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The main points are: 11. The farmhouse was approved with the occupancy condition as a replacement for an original house dating back to 1840 . It was approved "on review" in 1993 after 3 previous refusals. Due to the approval being on review, the system used for the property search at the time of the appellant's purchase revealed the planning approval but not the conditions attached. The conditions could have been found if the advocate had undertaken further investigation. 12. The site is identified as "white land" in the Area Plan for the South. Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Housing Policies 7 and 8, and paragraphs 8.9.2 and 8.9.4 of the Strategic Plan are relevant. There are no specific policies in the Strategic Plan relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions, but paragraph 8.9 .4 states that such conditions will not usually be removed "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". 13. There is some sympathy with the appellant's situation in having not been aware of the condition, but it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there is no long-term need for agricultural dwellings on this farm or in the wider locality. The proposal does not comply with paragraph 8.9 .4 of the Strategic Plan and the appeal should be dismissed. Matters of relevance in reaching that conclusion include:

the test used historically - in which it was expected that an agriculturally restricted property should have been offered for sale at a 25-30 % price reduction for 6 months - is not now

considered to be adequate to establish whether there are any agricultural workers nearby who need accommodation, or whether a farm may need a dwelling in the long-term;

the Inspector in the case of PA07/00216/B - relating to Tramman, Ballamanaugh Road - stated that there was no support for that 25-30 % reduction test, which was arbitrary and did not provide a proper focus for assessing continuing need;
the Inspector in the case of PA11/00908C - relating to Norfolk Nurseries, Greeba - stated that "a sustained and realistic marketing campaign is required targeting those that might comply with the condition". In the current appeal, the property has not been advertised as having an agricultural tie or at a price achievable by an agricultural worker;
the Inspector in the case of PA08/00463 - relating to The Mines House, Abbeylands - suggested that marketing should begin at a low price base, and that the price could then be raised if multiple offers were received until there was a "winning bid". That approach has not been taken in the current appeal case;
although the amount of land associated with this farm may not justify an agricultural dwelling, there had been additional land within the same ownership when the approval was granted. It is believed that this was sold off separately and was never owned by the current appellant;
the land and dwelling could be purchased by a farmer who already has land or is renting land;
the appellant has submitted no information to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for agricultural dwellings in this locality or the surrounding area;
the occupation of this dwelling by an agricultural worker could avoid the need for a new agricultural dwelling elsewhere;
it is unlikely that the dwelling would be within the reach of an agricultural worker at the asking price advertised of £ 2.5 \mathrm{~m}.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

The Director of Highways did not oppose the proposal. Malew Parish Commissioners did not object. The Agricultural Adviser at DEFA has assessed the labour requirements of the unit in its current use as grassland and rough grazing as 65.3 standard man hours per year, equating to only 0.03 of a labour unit, which would not justify a dwelling. (Inspector's Note: The land is stated to be subject of an informal grazing agreement with a farmer from The Fairy in order to keep the grass at a reasonable level).
Mr I K Bleasdale and Mrs E Bleasdale (of Kirk Maughold) do not have interested person status. At application stage they stated that the only decision that could be made was approval, by way of apology for past events, including the failure of the official search to reveal the occupancy condition.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

The main issue relates to whether there is sufficient justification to remove the agricultural occupancy condition, having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and other material considerations.
There is no specific policy in the Strategic Plan relating to the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions, but paragraph 8.9 .4 of the supporting text to Housing Policy 8 makes clear that such conditions will not usually be removed 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. Having regard also to the fact that essential housing for agricultural workers is only permitted under Housing Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan as an exception to the usual restrictions on development in the countryside in Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3, it is very important that the removal of an occupancy restriction is not allowed without convincing reasons. Such an approach is necessary in order to avoid abuses of this planning policy concession to the agricultural sector.
It would normally be expected in a case such as this that the existence or absence of a need for the dwelling as a home for an agricultural worker would have been tested by way of a targeted marketing exercise. That has not happened here. The marketing particulars that have been provided do not disclose the existence of the agricultural occupancy condition, and there is no evidence to suggest that the asking price detailed on those particulars represents anything of a reduction relative to the value of a property with unrestricted occupation. Although the appellant has suggested that it was open to potential purchasers to make offers on the basis of the occupancy restriction, there was in my view no reasonable prospect of that happening when the existence of the occupancy condition was not explicitly disclosed to potential buyers. The appellant stated at the inquiry that the existence of the condition has only been disclosed more recently in internet marketing of the property. Moreover, the appellant accepted at the inquiry that no specific approaches had been made to members of the local agricultural community to make them aware of the availability of a property with an agricultural occupancy condition. Having regard to the basic level of the marketing of the property which has been undertaken, it has not been established by the evidence presented that there is no need, including long-term need, for dwellings for agricultural workers in this locality. Although the evidence is reasonably convincing that the limited area of land available at Grenaby Farm is insufficient to require a resident worker on this specific farm, regard should also be had to possible need in the locality.
In most circumstances the conclusions in the paragraph above would be sufficient to support an overall conclusion that the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition should not be allowed. However, there are in my view 2 important matters in this case which weigh in the opposite direction. The first concerns the fact that this dwelling has not been occupied by a person meeting the requirements of the occupancy condition for over 9 years. That is the period during which the appellant has been in occupation. In response to my questions, the appellant further stated her belief that the dwelling was also occupied by persons who did not meet the condition in the period immediately prior to her occupation. The Planning Authority confirmed at the inquiry that if evidence could be found to show that the property had been occupied in breach of the condition for more than 10 years, then it would be possible to apply for and secure a Certificate of Lawfulness of Use or Development. If granted, such a certificate would allow continued occupation without compliance with the occupancy condition.
In response to further questions I asked at the inquiry, the Planning Officer confirmed that enforcement action had not been taken or authorised with respect to the long-standing breach of this agricultural occupancy condition. The same Officer also stated that it might well not be in the public interest to take enforcement action after such a lengthy period of non-compliance with the condition. Consequently, it is far from certain that a decision to dismiss this appeal would lead to the return of this dwelling to occupation by an agricultural worker. It is perhaps more likely that all that would happen is that the appellant would be forced to wait until January 2015, when it could become possible for her to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness based only on her own period of occupation of the property.
The second important matter concerns the likelihood of this property being suitable for occupation by an agricultural worker and of it ever being occupied for that purpose. Although there is an absence of evidence on the case file regarding agricultural workers' wage/salary rates on the Island, on an intuitive basis I find that the extent and quality of accommodation available in this house (see paragraph 10) are such that it is unlikely to ever be available at a rent or purchase price that would be affordable to an employed or retired agricultural worker. Insofar as the dwelling could be occupied by the farmer of a large holding, or an agricultural estate owner, with greater means than a typical employed agricultural worker, there is no evidence available to suggest that any such persons are seeking dwellings for their own occupation in this locality.
Bringing all these matter together, I find that this is a finely balanced case. However, on the balance of the available evidence it is in my view unlikely that this dwelling would ever be occupied by an agricultural worker even if this appeal is dismissed. Having regard particularly to the long period of time over which the dwelling has been occupied by persons who do not meet the requirements of the occupancy condition, to the absence of any evidence to show that the Planning Authority would be likely to take enforcement action to ensure compliance with the condition, and to the apparent likelihood that the appellant would be able to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness in about 6-7 months' time, I find that there is sufficient justification to remove the agricultural occupancy condition. These conclusions relate to the particular and unusual circumstances of the individual property which is subject of this appeal, and should not be regarded as having any material implications for the merits of any proposals that might be submitted for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions on other properties. Such cases would have to be determined on their own individual merits.
The Planning Authority agreed at the inquiry that no additional conditions would be required if the appeal were to be allowed.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the appeal be allowed, and that planning approval be granted for the continued occupation of the farmhouse at Grenaby Farm, Grenaby, Ballasalla, Isle of Man, without complying with condition 1 (the agricultural occupancy condition) attached to Planning Approval No. 93/0286 for the erection of a new farmhouse, but subject to the other conditions imposed on that Planning Approval, insofar as those conditions are still subsisting and capable of taking effect.

Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Appeal No. AP14/0028

Page 5

241376