An Isle of Wight couple who were ordered to leave their holiday home after using it as a permanent residence have submitted another bid to stay there for a further 2 years – or until they can sell it, whichever is sooner. The latest proposed application is hoping for permission to allow Mr and Mrs Heath to live in the dwelling on Appleford Road near Godshill for up to 2 years or until it is sold – whichever is sooner. Since 2018, the pair have been in breach of planning conditions by living in a property designated as a holiday unit by the Isle of Wight Council, known as Appletree Barn. In 2023, the couple was served with a 6-month enforcement order and were told to leave the Appleford Lane property, near Whitwell, by November. Instead, they asked for the holiday home restrictions to be temporarily lifted – for 3 years – to give them more time to find somewhere to live. Nearly 30 letters of support were sent to the Isle of Wight Council, calling for the couple to be allowed more time to stay, as well as 4 objections. On that occasion, planners concluded that the couples personal circumstances were not relevant to their application and that – given their financial position – find suitable accommodation elsewhere. Rural property specialists BCM say within the application that the property has now been sectioned into zones and the bungalow-only can now be purchased by any prospective buyer for £495,000. Previously, the 2-bed bungalow and surrounding land was on sale for £800,000, a price which the IWC deemed ‘unreasonable’ It is said within, that in the current economic climate, properties like Appletree Barn are unsaleable. All comments on the application need to be made by the 26th April. The application can be viewed on the Isle of Wight Council’s planning register quoting reference 24/00403/FUL.
COUPLE FORCED TO LEAVE HOLIDAY HOME SUBMIT FRESH PLAN TO TEMPORARILY STAY – AGAIN
- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
TOP STORIES THIS WEEK
-
SHOPLIFTER WHO STOLE FROM B&M TOLD TO STOP “TAKING THINGS WITHOUT PAYING”
-
MURDER ARREST AFTER PERSON DIES IN FATAL COWES HOUSE FIRE
-
HIGH STREET BLOCKED AFTER TOYOTA COLLIDES WITH ELDERLY WOMAN
-
POLICE CORDON OFF SECLUDED BEACH NEAR RYDE AMID INCIDENT
-
EARLY HOURS BLAZE RIPS THROUGH COWES HOME – LOCAL RESIDENTS TOLD TO KEEP WINDOWS CLOSED
Useful Links
External Links
Well at least they have dropped the price of the place…. two years ? …. OK…let them stay then..
IWC doing nothing as usual. What a waste of time, money and space. These people are laughing in their faces.
It’s a holiday home NOT a permanent residence, so they can’t moan !!!
If they pay full Council tax they should be allowed to stay.
Just leave them alone! The levels of control in some areas of the UK is frightening. The lemmings allow it to happen too.
Kick ’em out, there are working people who can’t even afford a 1st home, let alone a holiday home.
Having looked at the estate agents websites for 2 bedroom bungalows, £495,000 seems to be at the upper end of ‘reasonable’ for a full time home but it isn’t a ‘full time’ home. Any buyer wishing to live there could only do so for, perhaps, ten months at a go and I imagine, as a designated holiday home, it would be subject to a different, probably higher, council tax rate.
Having spent six years knowingly breaching the conditions on the property they still seem to want to play games.
I wonder who wrote the ‘nearly 30’ letters of support?
on one hand council says too many holiday lets stopping people having somewhere to live ,so are going to double council tax on holiday lets ,then say cant live in a holiday let as we want them ??
For goodness sake let them stay. More council money wasted persecuting an old couple. So they bent a silly rule, we all ignore some, be it driving, parking, trespass, dog off lead, using a mobile, or another insignificant rule.
Sounds like you should give yourself up to the police for all your crimes that the rest of us don’t commit.
This is not an insignificant rule but instead it is a rule to stop over-development in the countryside, which needs protecting, especially from people who think that the law doesn’t apply to them.
Eggsactly, we should be allowed to use our phones while we’re driving. There is nothing else to do, and it never hurt anyone.
It always amazes me how much effort the Council can muster to pursue such a ridiculously mean spirited pursuit, whilst ignoring more relevant issues, such as the state of their own public services!
I assume that all of these comments in support of these rule-breakers have been written by the people who own this house.
I would rather see a good house being lived in all year than standing empty for half of it.
“..planners concluded that the couples personal circumstances were not relevant to their application and that – given their financial position – find suitable accommodation elsewhere.”
Isn’t the couples financial position classed as their personal circumstances?
Just saying..