An Isle of Wight couple will not be allowed to live in their holiday home temporarily until they find permanent accommodation. 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. The property and 12 acres of land are on the Isle of Wight housing market for £800,000. Now, the Isle of Wight Council has ruled the house’s owners’ ‘personal circumstances are not relevant’ and ‘do not justify the temporary loss of holiday accommodation’. County Hall called the address distinctly rural, ‘isolated and unsustainable’, situated along a narrow lane without a pavement or street lighting, far from facilities and public transport. It argued the couple’s request was ‘significantly undermined’ by what it called an ‘unreasonably high’ sale price and questioned whether the property would sell within 3 years without a reduction in price. Council officers said temporarily removing the rules around how the holiday home is used would materially undermine the authority’s planning policy to support high-quality tourism accommodation. In 2021, a request to turn the holiday home into a permanent residence was refused by County Hall. Last year, in response to the council’s enforcement notice, the government’s Planning Inspectorate said the property would never have won permission to be a permanent dwelling because of its remote location. The latest decision can be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.
COUPLE NOT ALLOWED TO LIVE IN HOLIDAY HOME UNTIL THEY FIND PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION
- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
TOP STORIES THIS WEEK
-
FRIENDS’ DAY TRIP TO THE ISLE OF WIGHT ENDED IN TRAGEDY MAIB REPORT REVEALS
-
FIRE CREWS TACKLING MAJOR CONTAINER BLAZE ON OUTSKIRTS OF RYDE
-
3 CARS INVOLVED IN MAIN ROAD CRASH AT HALE COMMON
-
ARMED POLICE AND HELICOPTER HUNT FOR MAN CARRYING SUSPECTED GUN IN RYDE
-
WIGHTLINK FERRY CREW RESCUES CROSS-SOLENT SWIMMER STRUGGLING AGAINST THE TIDE
Useful Links
External Links
Too many nerds in the Isle of Wight council
Hang on… is this the couple who moved to Spain hoping to live the good life and then returned… probably because they don’t speak the language then reocupied said holiday home and priced it at £300.000 more than it is worth..perhaps hoping it wouldn’t sell so they can live there forever ? Sorry I have no sympathy for these wealthy people. None at all..
Who cares, its their home, beaurocracy gone mad.
Well said… zero sympathy…
There seems to be a lot of confusion here. This house was built as a holiday let and only received planning permission to be occupied as a holiday let. The owners went to live abroad, sold up the place abroad, and then came back assuming that they could ignore the rules and live permanently in a holiday home. They were told that is not allowed and then put the house up for sale at an impossible price to try to beat the rules. They are just chancers. If the council let people live permanently in holiday homes, every caravan on the island will be full of druggies down from London claiming benefits at our expense. See the bigger picture everyone.
You are not jealous at all are you?
So they are willing to house themselves at no cost to anyone but they are not allowed. I would apply for a council house if I was them
Exactly,so now home will be empty and at risk so Council should be liable,but this family will now have to rent another home on the Island taking opportunity away from a homeless family. Council planning on the Island need shake up by government as seems to make decisions and then find ways to justify, sometimes you can have hundreds of objections against a development and they approve or can have no objections and is refused,look at hotel decisions recently in Sandown – council again should be liable for damage caused by fires (10 so far ) after planning refusal. Like the stable for Councillor agreed but the chap in Ventnor putting up fence refused. Just look at all the large developments agreed recently despite objections and flooding.
Long list and probably take longer than 3 years, unless you arrive by rubber dinghy.
ah yes, because providing holiday homes is far more important than providing locals permission to live in their own property on their own land as their primary residence.
They should let it out to “friends” or “visitors” for short lets and then go and visit them on a regular (permanent basis). Show this council that they are a total joke.
What a complete load of b@ll@cks this Council is, if they pay their
Council tax, they should be allowed to live there.
More controlling B@llocks from Government run Councils.
Tear it down, reject any applications for residence and leave them homeless
Rent it out to the government on a long let for ‘refugees’, pop to France, come back on a dingy without their passports and fess up to being 19yrs old and in fear of their lives.
Get given £100s a month and rehoused in their own property.
Sorted!!
Become an IWC councillor.. rubber stamp straight away then .. simples !!
Bureaucracy gone mad as usual.
‘County Hall called the address distinctly rural, ‘isolated and unsustainable’, situated along a narrow lane without a pavement or street lighting, far from facilities and public transport’ so why would anyone want to holiday there,if unfamiliar with lane likely mainlander could have accident. Council bully public just like they do employees!. All this negative publicity forced by IWC will hinder any sale.
What’s a rural and isolated property,got to do with it,who has street lights and nice pavements out in the sticks,also there are houses built years ago in isolated places anyway.also why would some people object,surely can’t be affecting anyone else.And the nonsense about losing a holiday home on the island is really stretching it. obviously this comment is not taking into account how the owners have dealt with things though.
We’ve got the worst council in GB. Pathetic harrassment of a couple who should be able to live where they want. My advice is move to Scotland where people are able to build and live in remote housing without interference from some jumped up little jobsworths at the local authority who actually get off on this sort of thing, they love it, nothing pleases them more than ruining someones year.
Its jut like the very very over priced floating bridge. If it was sold it wouldn’t get 1% of what we have paid for that lump of scrap. So what’s the difference
We have enough spongers breeding to avoid paying their way in life, without those with money conning a cheap way of living by flouting planning rules.
Ooff them out imo.
Well they have had since 2018 to find somewhere to live so I think the council is quite right to tell them to vacate the holiday home. Though I can’t quite see the councils reasoning to refuse to remove the holiday home restriction. I can’t see living down narrow lane without pavements, street lights and far from facilities and public transport is much of an argument for refusing planning permission. There must be qwuite a few other houses in this type of situation on the Island.
If they are paying full council tax they should be allowed to live there.
Is there any real harm done. There’s a lot of jealousy shown here because they have a few bob. How much money has the council wasted (AGAIN) with their pedantic bullying. I’ll wager the council wouldn’t spend their own money bullying this poor old couple.
their mental health (the news buzz word) must be unnecessarily suffering.
For goodness sake the old couple wont be able manage for very long in that isolated location. They are doing no one any real harm. We don’t live in a perfect world where silly rules fit every situation.
It concern’s me is that this uncaring council is supposed to see that we are all well and looked after.
If they move it will only be another home unavailable to others.
And how many other properties on the island that are in the middle of nowhere away from any facilities and down an unlit lane with no pavement. My idea of heaven. This couple didn’t go down the brown envelope route with the planners or its a case of their face don’t fit. I don’t get it as you can live in a holiday camp for most of the year so what’s the difference??
Looks like it’s just off a main road from the picture
Looks like it’s just off a main road from the picture.
Rich people’s problems, eh?
change your nationality to anything other than British and you’ll get the green light and red carpet
Another point to make is that there are literally dozens of people living full time all year round in their caravans at Thorness Bay and lots of other ‘holiday complexes’ completely against the rules, but nothing gets done about that. One rule for one group and another rule for others hardly seems fair. This couple should do what everyone does at Thorness Bay, just give a permanant address as a relatives home, then stay in the holiday home they’ve purchased.
I grew up and lived on a country road with no pavement, no street lights, no tarmac or a level surface 1/2 a mile from the next house what is wrong with that, the Planning officers have gone completely stupid, not every one wants to live on an estate. It’s rather odd that it’s ok for tourism but not for an Island resident!!!