17 March 2011 · Planning Committee
Tramman, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2hd
The proposal sought to remove two conditions from the 1984 approval for Tramman: Condition 7 requiring it to remain part of the Ballamanagh agricultural holding, and Condition 8 limiting occupation to agricultural workers or their dependants.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
Officers found insufficient evidence that long-term need for agricultural workers' accommodation on the farm or locality had ceased, per para 8.9.4 of Isle of Man Strategic Plan: 'Such a condition wil…
Paragraph 8.9.4 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan
Requires proof long-term need for agricultural dwellings on particular farm/locality no longer warrants reservation. Officers tested via labour units (2.83 total/1.39 functional), marketing, farm scale; found unproven due to potential changes. Tension: current low need vs future viability on large holding.
Planning Circular 3/88 para 6
Occupancy limited to agriculture workers/dependants; removable only if no long-term need demonstrated on farm/locality. Officers applied strictly per prior appeals; marketing flaws (rent-only, ad wording) failed test.
Do not oppose, has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
Lezayre Parish Commissioners object to the removal of the agricultural workers occupancy condition due to inadequate marketing evidence and discrepancies in property condition reports. Department of Infrastructure Highways initially do not oppose but later defer pending visibility splay demonstration; G A Clark also objects.
Key concern: market not adequately tested for agricultural worker occupancy
Lezayre Parish Commissioners
ObjectionThe Commissioners refuse this application; The Commissioners question if the property has been marketed correctly and effectively as no recent evidence is attached to show this; The Commissioners seek clarification of the current condition of Tramman; the permission be refused for the removal of the agricultural tithe or the transfer of the agricultural tithe as they feel that the market has not been adequately tested
Department of Infrastructure Highways Division
Conditional No ObjectionDefer | | With the proposed removal of the agricultural condition, applicant needs to demonstrate that the visibility splays for a residential dwelling can be achieved along this derestricted highway
Conditions requested: applicant needs to demonstrate that the visibility splays for a residential dwelling can be achieved
Department of Infrastructure Highways Division
No ObjectionDo not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications
G A Clark
Objectiona refusal is still warranted; the benefit of the doubt and the overall benefit of retaining the condition has been regularly upheld
The original application sought removal of an agricultural occupancy condition from a dwelling on a farm holding. It was refused by the Planning Committee on 10 March 2011 due to insufficient evidence of no long-term need for agricultural workers' accommodation. The applicants, represented by Long & Humphrey Advocates, lodged an appeal (AP11/0034) notified on 29 March 2011, arguing no ongoing need, marketing efforts, changed farm circumstances, and reference to planning circular 3/88. The appeal was set for public inquiry procedure with statements due by extended date of 10 May 2011. The Department submitted their case defending the refusal. The appeal was withdrawn on 17 May 2011, so the refusal stands.
Precedent Value
This withdrawn appeal shows comprehensive argumentation strategy for removing ag-occ conditions but highlights risk of withdrawal; future applicants should ensure all evidence ready before lodging, especially for inquiry procedure, and consider if refusal reasons can be robustly overcome.
