Agricultural Occupancy Condition

Reluctant_aviator

Thanks for the replies. Assuming I accept what the council meant rather than what they wrote, does "the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons solely employed at the equestrian centre" mean that the occupier must only work at the equestrian centre, or that only somebody who works at the equestrian centre may occupy the house? Sounds like semantics I know but the first interpretation would suggest the equestrian worker cannot have a second job whereas the second interpretation does not.

Another issue that has arisen is that the detached double garage was given a time limited permission. This limit has expired about 8 years ago. Is the garage part of the dwelling and therefore immune from enforcement action or can I be required to remove it as the breach of permission was less than 10 years ago?

Davesnave

I would say that, "the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons solely employed at the equestrian centre" is intended to convey that the qualifying occupant must work at the equestrian centre as their full time job.

I don't think it's semantics, because if was intended to grant greater flexibility, it would read, "solely to persons employed at the equestrian centre."

It seems that this tie is particularly tight & restrictive, so an interesting situation would arise if the equestrian centre ceased to exist. The business which was responsible for the building of my house is long gone.

As to the garage, I am really not sure. On the one hand, I cannot see how it could be counted as "the dwelling," since no one lives in it, but the fact that it was given temporary permission suggests a use related to the dwelling, the business, or both. In any event, more than four years have elapsed since the permission expired, so if the council have failed to take enforcement action, it would seem that it is now too late.

I suppose I might be accused of using semantics in the case of the garage, so it would be good to hear others' opinions, particularly those of planning officer, if he's around.

Yorkie1

Davesnave wrote: »

I would say that, "the occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons solely employed at the equestrian centre" is intended to convey that the qualifying occupant must work at the equestrian centre as their full time job.

I don't think it's semantics, because if was intended to grant greater flexibility, it would read, "solely to persons employed at the equestrian centre."

It seems that this tie is particularly tight & restrictive, so an interesting situation would arise if the equestrian centre ceased to exist. The business which was responsible for the building of my house is long gone.

I agree with your interpretation, davesnave, i.e. that it means people who are only employed at the centre.

BottomE

Ten years ago we moved into a property that had a condition that required the occupants to use the land for the rehabilitation of horses. We took the risk and paid for a similar property without a tie, ie 'top dollar'. Our employment was elsewhere but we put our own horses on the land for our own recreational use. We have been there for slightly more than ten years and have had no enforcement action. I intend to apply for a Section 191 Certificate of Lawful Occupation.

Are there risks to this?
How can I prove conclusively that I have been in breach for that time?

Any advice gratefully received.

Fuzzyness

BottomE wrote: »

Ten years ago we moved into a property that had a condition that required the occupants to use the land for the rehabilitation of horses. We took the risk and paid for a similar property without a tie, ie 'top dollar'. Our employment was elsewhere but we put our own horses on the land for our own recreational use. We have been there for slightly more than ten years and have had no enforcement action. I intend to apply for a Section 191 Certificate of Lawful Occupation.

Are there risks to this?
How can I prove conclusively that I have been in breach for that time?

Any advice gratefully received.

for a Section 191 application to be successful you dont need to conclusively prove anything. applications such as this are determined on the balance of probability i.e. if you state that you've been in breach of the condition for 10 years and provide evidence to this effect its down to the authority to prove otherwise. submit as much evidence of the breach as you can i.e. when it started, bills, agreements, photos, avadavat from previous tenant/owner, neighbour.

Reluctant_aviator

Thanks Davesnave, that was my interpretation of the restriction.

Having read through the National Planning Policy Guidelines, section 206 regarding planning conditions and obligations it states that they must be "..enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects".

Given that my restriction is badly drafted, and does not allow for additional outside employment in times of economic hardship, I would suggest it fails on all 3 points. Time for a solicitor I think.

Regarding the garage, the council are arguing that it is an unauthorised building within the green belt and so subject to a 10 year enforcement period. I argue it is a part of the dwelling, so subject to a 4 year enforcement period.

Fuzzyness

was the garage erected without planning permission? if so and its been up for four years and you can demonstrate this it should be immune from enforcement. the four year rule doesnt only apply to use as a dwelling house. it also applies where development has occured i.e. in this case the erection of a garage.

Reluctant_aviator

The garage was erected with a temporary planning permission for a period of 2 years which expired 8 years ago. We are in green belt.

Fuzzyness

that seems unreasonable to permit a garage on a temporary permission. how was the garage constructed? with brick and block? to construct a solid structure from brick for a period of 2 years seems unreasonable in my view, in that why permit something that would cost so much to put up and then expect the owner to take it down 2 years later.

the green belt designation doesnt really make any difference. if you've not complied with the condition for more than four years after the permission expired i'd say you could make a case for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use application.

Reluctant_aviator

The garage was constructed with concrete panels and fibre cement roof so easy enough to remove. It was temporary permission because at the time it was to serve a temporary mobile home. The Mobile home has been replaced with a permanent house but the garage was never removed as required by the temporary planning permission. When we bought the house nobody picked up on the fact that the permission granted was time limited and the problem only came to light when we applied to replace the garage as it's a bit of any eyesore. The council have now served an enforcement order but as the garage is part of the dwelling I believe that they have only 4 years to enforce the breach. The council claim that they have 10 years to enforce an unauthorised building in the greenbelt.