Agricultural Occupancy Condition

Davesnave

Emmylou wrote: »

Would working in an abbatoir (or similar level of food production) mean he qualifies for an Ag-Tied property?

No, because he would be employed in the processing of food products, and not in producing them. The difference isn't just one of semantics.

Here is a reasonably comprehensive explanation of what the term 'agriculture' means in this context, which I have lifted word for word from another site :

'The term agriculture is prescribed within section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins for fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of the land, the use of land as osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds and the use of land for woodland where that is ancilliary to the farming of the land for other agricultural purposes.'

Parsonson Planning Consultancy

HTH

Nenen

I'd really appreciate some advice. We have been renting a bungalow for the past 2 and a half years. Until March 2011 it was owned by a 90+ year old farmer's widow who was living in a nursing home. The rent went towards the cost of the nursing home. She died in March and the bungalow was inherited by her son, who is a farmer (he has his own house across the field from us) and her daughter who, as far as I know, is not in farming.

Our current tenancy contract is up for renewal in February 2012 but we have just found out (while investigating who owns the property since the old lady's death) the property has an agricultural tie. The property is managed by a large local letting agency who did not inform us of the ag tie. Neither my dh nor I work in agriculture so we have been living here in breach of the ag tie, albeit without knowing.

My question is, are we liable for any fines or costs if this breach comes to light or would it be the owners or letting agency? Does it make any difference that we were not informed of the ag tie? We want to stay for a bit longer (still haven't found a place we want to buy) but we will not renew the tenancy if we could be liable for huge fines etc.

Davesnave

Nenen wrote: »

My question is, are we liable for any fines or costs if this breach comes to light or would it be the owners or letting agency?

You have no liability, whether you were informed or not, but it sounds as if there was nothing in the paperwork to tell you.

If the local authority found out, your landlord could be in trouble, but it would take some time for processes to be initiated and so on. Since no one has informed on you in the last 2.5 years, there's no reason believe they'll do so in the future, especially if there are few neighbours. Councils may run their own checks periodically, but we all know how much pressure they're under and it's hardly likely to be a priority.

The farmer is probably hoping to breach the condition for ten years when, if he can prove he has, it should be possible to change the tie to a Certificate of Lawful Use, raising the value of the bungalow.

I know of a couple who've lived an ag-tied bungalow for at least three years, and neither works in anything, let alone agriculture. The local community may not know, as the property is away from most other houses and the couple are reclusive. Even if members of the parish council did know, they might consider it unwise to report the matter, as the landlord is well-regarded and the couple have to live somewhere.

On the other hand, it would only take one disgruntled young farm worker to go direct to the council and something would happen, but knowing our council, it would be s-l-o-w-l-y!

Nenen

Thank you so much Davesnave for such a quick and helpful response.

Davesnave wrote: »

You have no liability, whether you were informed or not, but it sounds as if there was nothing in the paperwork to tell you.

No, nothing in paperwork or verbally to indicate an ag tie.

Davesnave wrote: »

If the local authority found out, your landlord could be in trouble

Do you think this would mean us being evicted?

Davesnave wrote: »

The farmer is probably hoping to breach the condition for ten years when, if he can prove he has, it should be possible to change the tie to a Certificate of Lawful Use, raising the value of the bungalow.

Having read this thread, that was exactly my thought, especially as, when we asked the letting agent if the inheritors would be selling the bungalow, she told us that they wouldn't be selling as they needed the rent to pay death duties. This struck us as strange because if they needed money to pay death duties one would think they would need a lump sum, (eg from sale of property) not a monthly income. I now wonder whether they are trying to do what an earlier poster was talking about, namely get a low probate valuation based on having an ag tie, then once probate is done and death duties paid they get the ag tie lifted and sell for far more.

Is it definitely still 10 years that an ag tie needs to be breached for? I have a vague memory of reading that the government had shortened the time needed for some breaches of planning law to be eligible for a certificate of lawful use? However, that might just be normal planning breaches, eg someone builds an extension without permission.

Davesnave

Nenen wrote: »

Do you think this would mean us being evicted?


Is it definitely still 10 years that an ag tie needs to be breached for?

Losing a tenancy can happen to anyone who's on an AST. I would imagine in a worst case scenario that the local authority would allow the tenancy to run its course, if it's a standard 6 month AST, or for a similar period if it's a rolling tenancy. After all, it wouldn't be in their interests, or good public relations, to make you homeless!

You are the victim here, remember.

It's still 10 years, so far as I know. Four years applies to building works carried out without permission, I think. Then, one must not conceal what has been done, like the guy who built a house behind a wall of straw bales!

Davesnave

tim_rainbow wrote: »

I used a company called expensiveconsultants who were really knowledgeable and clear about what can and cannot be done with agricultural ties. You should find them easily by searching for them in Google.

Good luck!

No you didn't, you came here to spam this forum, or you'd have been more specific.:p

Post reported.

G_M

tim_rainbow wrote: »

I used a company called xxxxxxxx who were really knowledgeable and clear about what can and cannot be done with agricultural ties. You should find them easily by searching for them in Google.

Good luck!

The idea of this forum is to share knowledge, not refer posters to (your?) company.

Spam reported

Reluctant_aviator

Hi there, If the AOC is written badly, in such a way as to be meaningless English, even though we know what they are trying to say, can it be enforced?

Our AG tie reads .....shall be limited to persons solely employment at the equestrian centre.......

Exactly what does solely employment mean?

Many thanks

Yorkie1

"Solely in employment" I should think.

Davesnave

Reluctant_aviator wrote: »

Hi there, If the AOC is written badly, in such a way as to be meaningless English, even though we know what they are trying to say, can it be enforced?

Our AG tie reads .....shall be limited to persons solely employment at the equestrian centre.......

Exactly what does solely employment mean?

Many thanks

As Yorkie says, the meaning seems obvious here, so a small typist's slip probably won't help you much.

I have seen a case where the entire chunk about working in agriculture was accidentally left out, so it just read "working locally." In that case, the council insisted on buyers having a local job before purchase, which would not have been too onerous.

My own tie omits the words "working locally," although whether by design or accident I cannot say. Either way, it enabled us to retire here, based on work done elsewhere.