SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory

Tel: (01624) 685913 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]

Our Ref: 24/00270/B

Paul Visigah

Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN. Senior Planning Officer 16 September 2024. Dear Mr Johnstone,

PA No: 24/00270/B Proposal: Variation of occupancy condition on 84/00082/B to allow the dwelling to be let to non-agricultural tenants, guests and members of staff, for temporary periods within an overall period of five years.

Address: Tramman, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2HD.

Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by a Principal Planner on 5th August 2024, which is online and forms part of the planning file.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, MRTPI Senior Planning Officer

Appendix 1 – Statement of Case STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Variation of occupancy condition on 84/00082/B to allow the dwelling to be let to non-agricultural tenants, guests and members of staff, for temporary periods within an overall period of five years.

Tramman, Ballamanagh Road, Sulby, Isle Of Man, IM7 2HD

PA Reference: 24/00270/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, MRTPI

1.0 Appeal against refusal for PA 24/00270/B

The reason for refusal was:

• 1. There is in the submitted application insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is no short term or long term need for agricultural workers' accommodation at the site or locality, to further allow for the temporary suspension of the occupancy condition for the dwelling such that the dwelling could be occupied by a non-agricultural worker. As such, the proposal is considered to fail the provisions of General Policy 3, Housing Policy 8, and Section 8.9 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position

In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan, and the 1982 Development Plan, as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

• 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal

This report addresses those issues directly which were highlighted as a basis for the appeal. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation.

• 3.1 There appear to be six main issues raised by the appellants. The issues include:

• 1. The officer fails to identify what has changed since the previous approval in 2014 which would justify a different decision.

• 2. The officer fails to clarify which are the "recent planning applications for the erection of agricultural workers dwellings in the north of the island since the application to allow the use of the dwelling at Tramman by non-agricultural workers in 2013” so we have been unable to scrutinise these. The officer has not demonstrated how any such applications are relevant to the application site nor how they demonstrate that Tramman is still required as an agricultural dwelling.
• 3. The officer has failed to acknowledge that the farm which generated the justification for Tramman in the first instance, is not currently operational, nor has been or will be unless and until it is sold.
• 4. The officer has failed to identify any harm from the continued flexibility in occupancy of this property, particularly where it is clear from the previous condition and what has happened in practice, that should the need for an agricultural worker’s accommodate arise, Tramman should be available for this purpose.
• 5. The officer has stated that "Besides, the 10 year period was allowed to ensure that the works on the dwelling were cost effective” implying that this was the main reason for the recommendation for approval by the previous officer. In fact this reason relates to why the approval was granted for ten years rather than a shorter period and does not go to the heart of why the application was recommended for approval at all.
• 6. The officer has failed to identify any evidence of agricultural need for this property and does not appear to have taken into account how the farmland associated with Tramman is now managed, despite this being clearly set out in the application.

• 3.2 FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
• 3.3 Changes since the previous approval in 2014 that would justify a different decision

• 3.3.1 The appellant opines that the officer fails to identify what has changed since the previous approval in 2014 which would justify a different decision. In responding to this assertion, it would be vital to point out that since the initial approval, there has been no material planning changes which have arisen in terms of policy, which should result in more favourable dispositions to the proposal which at the time of approval was considered to be an approach that has never been tested on the island or the United Kingdom, nor has the applicants provided any evidence to justify further suspension of the occupancy condition for the dwelling. The fact that the property has been occupied by someone engaged in agriculture for most of the 10 year period points to the extent need for agricultural occupancy and a justification as to why the suspension of the condition would not be necessary in this case.
• 3.3.2 Further to the above, the policies which seek to protect available agricultural workers dwellings, with the goal to guarantee a continued supply of agricultural workers dwelling to those engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants are not particularly site specific, but are further determined by the events that exist in the locality, or any other nearby settlements (See Paragraph 8.9.4). In this case, whilst the applicants provides details of events which have occurred at the site, there is nothing within the application to demonstrate that there is no current short term or long term need for the dwelling to

support those currently engaged in agriculture, or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. As such, it is not considered that sufficient justification has been demonstrated for the proposal to be allowed.

3.4 Details on Recent Applications in the north

• 3.4.1 The Applicants opines that the officer has not provided sufficient evidence for scrutiny with regard to the demand for agricultural workers dwelling in the north of the island. However, the burden of proof lies with the applicant who should be providing the evidence that none of such demand exists in the area, nearby locations, or any part of the island, before seeking to continue the use of the dwelling as currently proposed.

• 3.4.2 Notwitstanding the above, the following applications for agricultural workers dwelling north of the island points to the continuing demand for agricultural workers dwelling to support agriculture, although these do not include dwellings that have been created by the conversion of redundant barns to further create dwellings for farmer at various farms on the island:

• 1. 22/00991/A and 24/00533/REM erection of new agricultural farm workers dwelling at Field 124429, The Lhen, Andreas;
• 2. 21/00031/B for Construction of replacement farm workers dwelling at Ballavarry Farmhouse Bernahara Road, Andreas;
• 3. 20/00675/B for Erection of an agricultural workers dwelling with associated farm office, at Ballacamaine Farm, Ballacorey Road, Bride;
• 4. 19/00749/B for Erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling with detached garage and store, at Part Field 214270, Loughan Farm, Bretney Road, Jurby;
• 5. 19/00292/A for Approval in principle for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling addressing siting, at Mount Karrin, Sulby Glen, Sulby;
• 6. 17/00988/B for Erection of detached farm workers dwelling and garage, at Field 234710, Orrisdale, Kirk Michael;
• 7. 17/00360/REM and 14/01341/A for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling, at Field Numbers 130579 And 134146, Magher Grianagh, St Judes Road, Sulby;
• 8. 13/91022/A for Approval in principle for the erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling, at Ballanybaa, Blue Point Road, The Lhen, Ramsey.

• 3.4.3 A review of the recent applications within this list, which have been approved would show that the application sites are within short driving distances from Tramman Farm, which should lend the Tramman site as a suitable farm dwelling site for these farms, meaning that there would be reduced need for these farm dwellings if the Tramman site was made available for rental or sale at workable estimates suitable for agricultural workers.
• 3.4.4 The above also points to the continuous need for agricultural works dwellings north of the island, although these do not factor in the reality that there are farms situated on multiple sites

• which are situated in both north and south of the island, and which are in need of agricultural works dwellings, such as PA 21/01444/B, where it was established that the farm operated multiple sites situated both south and north of the island. Besides, the policy does not just restrict occupancy to the immediate region, as the occupants of the dwelling do not necessarily have to be actively engaged in agriculture, but could be someone whose last full employment was in agriculture, or their widow/widower, or any resident dependents living in the Isle of Man, and this threshold (sphere) encompasses the entire island.
• 3.4.5 With regard to the comment that “The officer has not demonstrated how any such applications are relevant to the application site nor how they demonstrate that Tramman is still required as an agricultural dwelling”, it has already been noted in Paragraph 3.3.1 that the policy test is not just the site, but the surrounding area, with these applications demonstrating that there is still a demand for agricultural workers dwellings north of the island. Moreover, the occupancy condition which was imposed under PA 84/00082, which was approved for the erection of the dwelling, places further burden on the tests for the removal of the occupancy condition, by making it clear that the demand could be from any part of the island. See Condition 2 of that approval:

“The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture in the Island and includes the dependents of such a person as aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee.”

• 3.4.6 Based on the foregoing, there has to be sufficient evidence to show that the building is no longer required for any of the mentioned in condition (2) to demonstrate that there is no more or reduced agricultural need for the dwelling, and not just the need of the dwelling for the site or immediate locality. This must include demonstration that the property has been advertised for such occupancies and at practical rates, both for rental and sale to ensure that the policy tests have been followed to the letter.

3.5 The farm which generated the justification for Tramman is not currentlyoperational

• 3.5.1 The appellants have argued that the officer has failed to acknowledge that the farm which generated the justification for Tramman in the first instance, is not currently operational, nor has been or will be unless and until it is sold. Whilst this comment is noted, it would be vital to state that the tests for the erection of an agricultural building, and that related to the removal of occupancy conditions are different.

• 3.5.2 With regard to the erection of a new agricultural workers dwelling, it has to be clearly justified that there is agricultural need for such dwelling, as articulated in Housing Policy 7, as well as the supporting texts within Paragraphs 8.9.2 and 8.9.3 for the existing farm operations within the subject farm. These place particular emphasis on there being sufficient demonstration of agricultural need to allow the erection of the new dwelling to support that farm.
• 3.5.3 Conversely, the case for the removal of agricultural occupancy conditions do not just require that there be demonstration of there being no need for the dwelling to support the specific farm operation as previously demonstrated in the application for the dwelling, but that it also be demonstrated that there is no one anywhere on the island who would have need of the dwelling.

• 3.5.4 In reinforcing this position, the Appeal Inspector for PA 07/00216/B at the site considered that there are a range of incomes available to agricultural workers, and that a farmer could look to purchase a property such as this within a wide range of farming profit. As such, any intention to remove the building temporary from its intended agricultural occupancy must show that the dwelling has been made available for its intended occupants at estimates that factors in the income available for rent or mortgage for those actively engaged in agriculture, or whose last full employment was in agriculture, or their widow/widower, or any resident dependents living in the Isle of Man, and at a realistic sale or rental value.
• 3.5.5 From review of the application documents, there is nothing to show that any of these rigorous approaches have been taken save for the reference that the building is no longer required to support the farm operations on site, given that Tramman farm is no longer in operation, and these do not reflect the policy requirements of the test in its totality which does not just require that the building is no longer required for the site to support active agriculture, but that it would not be needed by those mentioned in the policy who may not be actively engaged in agriculture, and this goes beyond site specifics.
• 3.5.6 The concern with the current approach at the site is evidenced in the fact that the guide price for the whole of the Ballamanaugh Estate is set at £17,750,000; a value that puts the farm and the existing buildings, which includes the current building with agricultural ties considerably beyond the reach of any active farmer, and this reinforces the fact that the farmhouse has been intentionally positioned to not be purchased by any one actively engaged in agriculture. Likewise, there is no active advert for rental of the farmhouse on agricultural terms.

3.6 Issues with harm resulting from the proposal

• 3.6.1 The applicants have argued that the officer has failed to identify any harm from the continued flexibility in occupancy of this property. However, it would be vital to note that the real harm is not physical or a phenomenon that can just be judged by mere stating that no concerns resulted from the said approach, given that it needs to be clearly demonstrated via the current application that there is no short or long term need for the dwelling with its agricultural occupancy condition. Besides, as has been previously noted, the burden of proof lies with the applicants who should demonstrate that there is no harm from the use via the submission of documents that clearly highlight the lack of harm.

• 3.6.2 It should be noted that the harm here lies in the non-availability for use for its intended users, which would be subsumed in the fact that no document submitted by the applicant has demonstrated that extant need no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for the approved use. Furthermore, the sale document which should provide some insight into approaches taken to ensure that that the agricultural dwelling has been marketed to be available for rentals or outright sale to those currently engaged in agriculture, or whose last occupation was in agriculture, as well as their dependents gives no indication of such attempt being made. In fact, the focus on the outright sale of the whole estate, with none indicating that the farmhouse has been offered as an individual dwelling unit, with particular restrictions which needs to be the focus of the advertisements for the dwelling, and not as currently advertised.
• 3.6.3 The concerns articulated in 3.6.2 above is further reinforced by the fact that only a miniscule section of the sale document refers to the occupancy condition of the farm house, and its location

within the detailed document is such that does not exude any confidence in the applicants desire to make the dwelling available for its intended audience. See extract from Chrystals Estate Agents website marketing the farmhouse together with the entire farm:

“THE FARM AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES Home Farm has an extensive range of farm buildings and a modern dairy unit. The land at Lot 1 extends to approximately 490 acres, is primarily down to pasture and subject to an FBT. There are 2 houses, Tramman Farmhousewith 4 bedrooms and Ballamanaugh Farmhouse with 3 bedrooms situated in close proximity to the farm. Both are let on an AST and Tramman Farmhouse is Agriculturally Tied.There are an additional 3 cottages in Lot

1, Carrick Cottage with 4 bedrooms and currently vacant, Gardeners Cottage with 3 bedrooms and occupied by an employee, and The Lodge which sits at the head of the drive, has 3 bedrooms and is currently vacant.”

• 3.6.4 In addition, the documents submitted by the applicants show that the dwelling has recently been occupied by someone engaged in agriculture within the 10 year period (that is from 2014 until 2020/21 which is a six/seven year period within the 10 years), and this points to the need for the agricultural use to be prioritised, given that extant agricultural needs exist for the dwelling (See Paragraph 4.1 of Planning Statement). Therefore, it is not considered from the documents available that there is a need for further suspension of the occupancy condition on the dwelling.

3.7 Established reason for the 10 year condition

3.7.1 The applicants opine that the officer has stated that the officer’s comments regarding the 10 year condition imposed under PA 12/01203/C, implies that this was the main reason for the recommendation for approval by the previous officer. However, a careful review of the officer assessment would show that the reference to the 10 year condition was to highlight the need for extending the condition to 10 years and not the two to five years, as the 10 year condition was to give the applicants sufficient time to complete the works in a cost effective manner, and not that this was the reason for allowing the application (See Paragraph 6.5 of the officer report).

• 3.7.2 Given the above, it is considered that the emphasis on this issue as a concern is a deviation from the key concern with the application, as there is no difference in opinion regarding the imposition of the 10 year condition, which was imposed to allow for a cost effective restoration of the property.

3.8 Issues concerning how the farm is currently managed

• 3.8.1 It has been noted that the applicants consider that the Officer does not appear to have taken into account how the farmland associated with Tramman is now managed, despite this being clearly set out in the application. On this matter, it would be vital to note that the current management of the property has been clearly noted in Paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the Officer Report, with the officer clearly stating that the current management of the farm gives no grounds for further deviation of the policy guidelines regarding agricultural workers conditions. Moreover, other sections of this statement has discussed, providing clear arguments as to why the management of the farm bears less weight on how the policy on agricultural occupancy conditions is applied.

3.9 Conclusion

• 3.9.1 In conclusion, the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture maintains its position that the scheme as currently proposed would fail to align with the relevant polices guiding the erection and use of agricultural workers dwellings, and this is assessed on the basis of the documents that have been submitted to allow further use of the dwelling by a non-agricultural worker for another five years.

• 4.0 Potential Conditions
• 4.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following condition(s) be applied:

C 1: 5 Year Condition Within five years of this approval becoming final, the use hereby approved shall cease and the building shall continue to be occupied on the basis of the agricultural occupancy restrictions.

Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and the documents submitted, as the building was exceptionally approved solely to meet the stipulated agricultural need.

C2: Section 13 for Temporary Derogation

This approval shall be considered implemented upon the completion of the legal agreement pursuant to it setting out the terms of the variation/temporary suspension of the agricultural occupancy condition for five years.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.