Loading document...
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER.
1.1 The application site forms the curtilage of Three Acres, Ballafreer Lane, Union Mills, which is a modern dormer bungalow located on the northern side of the Peel Road and northwest of Union Mills Village. The site is accessed via Ballafreer Lane which is a single track road which is accessed off the Peel Road which serves the application site as well as Ballafreer Cottage, Rose Cottage and Ballafreer Farm.
The application seeks approval for the removal of agricultural worker's occupancy condition from dwelling.
3.1 The site is designated as being within an area of High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the 1982 Development Plan Order. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
3.2 Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:-
3.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 provides general policies relating to development in the countryside. It allows for new agricultural dwellings in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated (Housing Policy 7). In judging whether to allow for new dwellings regard these to be had to various criteria such as;
a) The previous or proposed severance of land and buildings; b) The agricultural justification for sub-division of a farm; c) The long-term viability of new or unproven agricultural enterprises such as small holdings, market gardens, or horticulture; d) The extent to which the applicant's employment in agriculture is only part-time; and e) In the case of a retiring farmer, whether the proposal would result in vacation of an existing farm dwelling for agricultural use and whether the applicant would continue to assist in the operation of the farm.
3.4 When granting an approval, Housing Policy 8 requires a condition to be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture or a widow or widower or such persons or any resident dependants. 3.5 It is paragraph 8.9 .4 of the plan that is most relevant to this application and the wording of this is important. It states: '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.'
4.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 4.2 Removal of agricultural workers condition from dwelling - 05/00654/C - APPROVED 4.3 Erection of conservatory - 00/00029/B - APPROVED 4.4 Replacement of kitchen window with PVC patio doors - 88/04389/B - APPROVED 4.5 Approval in principle for a dwelling on Field 1404 - PA 48075 - APPROVED (26th January 1979) with the following conditions attached: "4. This permission is in respect of one dwelling only on the whole site, which shall form part of the holding to which the dwelling shall be tied and from which the dwelling shall not be sold or let off separately without the Committee's permission. 5. The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was in agriculture in the Island and including also the dependents of such a person as aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee."
5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners 5.2 Highways Division do not oppose, this application as it has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications, and meets the relevant highway standards and policies.
6.1 When considering applications for the removal of such condition, the overarching consideration is whether the long-term need for that particular dwelling for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. The policy does, therefore, allow the removal of such conditions or 'ties'. The issue in this case is whether or not the appellants have provided sufficient evidence to show that there is no long term need for an agricultural farm workers dwelling at the site or in the vicinity. 6.2 In terms of evidence/background information, the applicant has submitted that permission for the dwelling was initial granted in 1979, when in the same year they had to vacate the property they had farmed from (Ballavargher Estate) as tenants, as the estate had been sold. In that same year, as compensation they were able to buy 3 acres of land (accessed off Ballafreer Lane) which in 1979 they gained planning permission for the dormer bungalow with an agricultural tie attached. At that time the current applicant still kept a small flock of sheep as he had a small parcel of land on the hills above Baldwin Reservoir (22 acres) and this enabled him to bring any sheep to the application site if they had difficult lambing.
6.3 The applicant advises that unfortunately due to the small income which was generated by the farming operation, both his wife and himself had to get jobs. He worked at Ballamona Hospital as a gardener (still kept his sheep). His wife eventually had to leave her job to look after her elderly Mother. Further information which was submitted by the applicant in 2005 planning application indicated that he worked at Ballamona Hospital from 1979 to 1994. 6.4 In 1984 and 1985 parcels of land (fields 1334 and 1406) became available adjacent to their land (application dwelling) which made their land ownership approximately 17 acres immediately adjacent to the dwelling. The applicant advises that this enabled him to indulge in his passion of training sheepdogs and competing in Sheepdog Trails on and off the Island which he did for many years. After retiring and receiving his O.A.P. he carried on until 1999 when he had to give up the hill land ( 22 acres at Baldwin Reservoir) due to high blood pressure as the travelling and early morning lambing became too much for him. 6.5 In 2005 the applicant had to give up his flock of sheep completely and sold his flock to a nearby Farmer (Mr. John Quayle) at Glenlough Farm and their land (17 acres) has been rented to the same farmer since 2005. 6.6 The applicants indicate that they wish to remove the condition from the bungalow as they are finding it ever more difficult financially and physically to carry on maintaining as they are both now in their 80's. The applicants indicate that they cannot see an agricultural worker being able to afford to buy the bungalow due to the state of agriculture these days and also few workers around. Their intention should the condition be removed, is to sell the property on a fair and open market price, as they would then be able to find retirement help assisted facilities to meet their current and future needs. 6.7 Conditions such as this should not be removed lightly and, without convincing evidence the removal of this condition could create a precedent whereby the Planning Authority would have difficulty resisting further applications to remove such conditions, resulting in more dwellings within the countryside which would not normally have been allowed. 6.8 Whilst the Planning Authority is mindful of the applicants needs and reasons why they wish to remove the condition, the fact remains that the planning system makes a very significant exception to the normal strict control over development in the countryside in order that the farming industry may carry on. A dwelling of this nature is an essential tool of the trade. 6.9 The Planning Authority has in the past has required that any such dwelling should be marketed at a discounted rate of between for more than 6 months to ascertain the need. Whilst this is just one approach to help determine the need of an agriculture workers dwelling, there still needs to be convincing evidence that the need is no longer required. Furthermore, especially more recently with property prices significant increasing over the last 15/10 years, it is generally found that this approach is becoming more and more inadequate, given in the majority of cases, even with the discounted rate as suggested; the price is still well out of reach for many agricultural workers who are generally on low wage levels. 6.10 Consequently, one way to help determine the need of such dwelling is it should be marketed at a price which an agricultural worker could reasonably afford. As indicated within paragraph 6.8 of this report, the Planning Authority made an significant exception to planning policy when initially approving the original planning application, and the likelihood of the dwelling being permitted, without it being used in connection with Agriculture would have been slim. 6.11 Further information that would help the Planning Authority to consider the long term need is the same type of information that demonstrated the need for the property in the first
place. This information relates to the size of the farm to which it related, the type of agriculture being carried on, the number of full time workers and any need to be on site. It would also need to look at the land outwith the farm to see if there are other farms adjacent that may need a dwelling. 6.12 However, from the information received there is no evidence been submitted to prove convincingly that there is no longer a long term need for the property either on the holding or in the locality.
7.1 It is therefore considered the proposal to remove the condition to be unacceptable for the reasons given within this report, and it is recommended the application be refused.
8.1 It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:
Marown Parish Commissioners 8.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of 09.08.2013
Recommendation:
Whilst there is considerable sympathy with the applicant's for the need for the condition to be removed, there is in the submitted application insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no further need or long term need for agricultural workers' accommodation either by utilising the existing farm holding or in this locality.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown