Loading document...
The site identified in plan reference MB3 represents the curtilage of an existing detached residential property situated on the southern side of the Rheast Road to the west of Newtown. The site represents a little over 2 ha.
The site is 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 approved 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 review 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. The supporting information supplied with the application 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.
Andrew Jessop of Port Soderick does not believe that the tie should be retained.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment recommend refusal although noting the size and value of the property and its history.
There are no views from Santon Parish Commissioners on the file.
There have been only one application for a new agricultural dwelling in Santon - PA 99/1272 at Ballavale (refused). There have been other applications for the removal of agricultural ties at Ballaquiggin (00/0254 - permitted), Meary Veg (03/1716) and Ballavale (05/92142 - as yet undetermined).
Planning Circular 3/88 states that "...such a condition will not usual be removed on subsequent application 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" (paragraph 6). The previous decision-makers would not seem to have been persuaded that this is the case and without appropriate marketing at the right market for an appropriate price, it is unlikely to be proven that there is no longer a need for such a dwelling.
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 11.01.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1.
The property was approved solely on the basis of agricultural need under the provisions of PAs 86/1101 and 87/1510. Since then there have been two attempts to remove the agricultural tie in PAs 92/0826 and 96/0349 - both of which were unsuccessful. Whilst the property has been offered for sale there is no evidence that the marketing has been specifically aimed at, or the price set at a level which would be affordable to, the agricultural market. The inspector reporting on PA 92/0826 reported 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". These principles still apply to this property and as such the Planning Committee is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification to remove the agricultural tie and effectively sanction the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the Department's land use policies and Planning Circulars 1/88 and 3/88.
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 : Refused Date : ...
Signed : ... M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown