Loading document...
a) the dwelling and its curtilage (as defined in the plan attached hereto) have been used as a dwelling house other than by an agricultural worker for period in excess of 10 years prior to 8th June 2006. ## Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:133916}} {{table:133917}} ### Considerations {{table:133918}} ### Written Representations {{table:133919}} ### Consultations
The site defined in black represents the land associated with an existing dwelling, Mullinaragher House situated on the southern side of the Rheast Road. The site is approximately 2 hectares and accommodates the dwelling at the northern end of the site, alongside the road.
The site lies within an area designated as "white land" on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 - that is, not designated for development.
The planning history of the site is as follows:
IDO 28941 - approval in principle for a bungalow - permitted IDO 47229 - erection of stable - permitted IDO 43343 - erection of a stable - permitted IDO 47620 - erection of stable - permitted PA 86/524 - approval in principle for conversion of building to dwelling - refused PA 87/0145 - erection of 6 horticultural polytunnels, windbreak and fence - permitted 87/0693 - alterations to convert disused building into dwelling and garage - refused PA 86/1101 - approval in principle for conversion of building to dwelling and erection of horticultural polytunnels - permitted PA 87/1510 - alterations and extensions to building to form dwelling - permitted PA 92/0826 - change of use to private dwelling and removal of polytunnels - refused on appeal PA 93/1374 - provision of landscaping - permitted PA 93/1575 - construction of conservatory and garage extension - permitted PA 94/1041 - erection of implement shed - permitted PA 96/0349 - change of use from agricultural to private residential - refused.
Now proposed is the change of use of the property to a private residential, effectively removing the agricultural tie imposed under PA 87/1101. In the supporting information supplied with PA 05/92277 the applicant suggests that the property has been marketed for approximately 4 months in which time there has been some interest shown but no firm offers. The property has been marketed at a price of £950,000. The marketing company, Harmony Homes has confirmed that no-one who expressed an interest in the property would contemplate the property if the tie was attached. They also query why a tie was attached to a property with so small an acreage associated with it.
There is no evidence that the property has been marketed as an agricultural property or with any reduction in the price.
The two previous applications for removal of the tie have both been refused. PA 96/0349 focused upon the non-viability of the holding and the difficulties in establishing any horticultural business there due to the prevailing weather. This was not persuasive.
The previous application, PA 92/0826 was refused on appeal. The Inspector noted that the applicant had had the property valued at £450,000 but not actively marketed and that a potential purchaser was prepared to buy the property, with the tie for £377,000. However, the property was clearly not sold. The Inspector goes on to recommend that "Notwithstanding the dwelling's high value which renders a ready sale less likely to a person willing to comply with the Condition, the fact is - as the appellant very fairly and properly disclosed - that the property has been sold to a purchaser who is willing to comply thereby reducing the likelihood of an application elsewhere for a new dwelling based on agricultural necessity. The fact that some "discount" is involved is not a matter to which any significant weight should be attached, for full unrestricted value cannot be expected for a property chosen to be built (or converted) subject to a limit as to its future use" and recommended that the appeal should be dismissed.
Since then the then applicants have separated and the current occupant, Mrs. Bolton wishes to sell the property. Mr. Bolton has had to retire due to ill-health and cannot afford to support their children, the property and his ex-wife in a property of this size. Mrs. Bolton explains that she does not work, has no pension and she cannot afford to live in the property. She goes on to provide an affidavit which confirms that she has lived in the property since 1993 since when it has not been occupied in accordance with the condition, her husband having been employed with an aircraft company until 1997 and after then retired but did not take up agricultural activity.
The property is significantly larger than many agriculturally tied properties and its market value - or the value at which the estate agents feel it should be marketed at is clearly beyond most if not all people employed in the agricultural industry.
The applicant makes reference to an approval for the use of the site as a garden in 1994. I can find no record of this: the two applications relating to landscaping (PA 03/1374) which required that the land be retained in association with agriculture/horticulture and the use of the site as a garden which was refused did not permit this.
I have spoken with the Rating Section who confirm that a 20% discount has been applied to the property since its erection: agricultural discount would be 50% of the private rateable value. As such the production of rating receipts actually confirms the horticultural status of the property rather than its private occupation as I suspect was intended.
The land associated with the house as shown in the site plan is a relatively large area (see above). However, it would not be easily separated from the house or maintained separate therefrom. There are landscape features within this area including a pond so its use and maintenance in association with the house is not in my view unacceptable.
There is confirmed evidence that the property has been occupied as a private residence since 1995 - possibly 1993 which means that for in excess of the period stipulated in the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act Schedule 4: Enforcement Notices Part 1.3.b) which states "in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, after the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the date of the breach" and c) "in respect of any other breach of planning control, after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the date of the breach".
As such, I would recommend that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that enforcement action could not be brought as the time for the issuing of an enforcement notice in respect of the failure has expired in accordance with Part 4. paragraph 24.2.b.1 of the Act and in this respect this certificate refers to the property and land defined in black on the 1:1000 plan, reference MB3 received on 26th May, 2006 for the purposes as a private dwelling house and associated garden.
The resident of Port Soderick and the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 20.07.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The submitted application, reference PA 06/00958/LAW contains evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Mullinaragher House and the associated curtilage as defined in black on plan reference MB3 received on 26th May, 2006 have been used as a private residential property and associated garden and other than by an agricultural worker or for horticultural purposes for a period in excess of twelve years prior to the period up to 8th June, 2006.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 18/8/06
Signed : M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown