Agricultural Occupancy Condition

Davesnave

Thank you for that clarification, planning officer. That's more hopeful advice for Deb than I was able to give.

I've amended my post above to avoid any confusion.

Vikki_hopeless

Firstly I would just like to thank those regular posters who really know their stuff and offer their help and advice so freely. This type of info is so difficult to find and having spent a long time going through this thread, I have learnt so much. Thank you!

My question has been asked before but only received 1 response and I have been told we do comply by some and we don't comply by others. Before we proceed, we really need clarification! Even the council (West Lancs) don't seem to know! The estate agent is a rural and farm specialist, and they immediately said yes but others have said no.

My OH is a dairy farmer's son. We are looking to buy our first house together but he works part time on the family farm, so we must be close, and need land for his fowl and sheep plus my horses. The house we have put an offer on is within 10 mins of his family farm and has 15 acres, so its perfect! And with the ag tag we can actually afford it.

However as I mentioned the farm is only part of his work. We are both vets. I am an equine vet and my OH is a farm vet. I know I do not comply with the equine work. My OH spends about 40% of his time on the farm and with his animals but we would need his work as a farm vet to comply with the ag tag to qualify.

Does anyone know if a farm vet complies? If anyone has documented cases I would be forever grateful!

Davesnave

Hi Vikki. As you know, I regularly reply on this thread, and I also have first hand info on your question here.

From some time in the late 1980s until around the year 2000, one of our local farm vets lived in my ag-tied property, so there was no problem with his compliance so far as our Devon local authority was concerned.

"Working in agriculture" means just that, but there is no requirement to be a farmer/producer, though clearly your OH's work with his own animals further strengthens his position.

To illustrate, someone who just works with farm produce, such as a manager of a farm shop, wouldn't qualify, because their role is in sales and distribution, not production. Your husband is working with stock all the time, and whether its his own or someone else's is irrelevant.

So, it's all good.

Vikki_hopeless

Thank you so much!

Xmissy84X

Hi


Sorry to drag up an old thread. I've found a 13 acre property (it has stables, arena and seems to be mainly an equestrian property)with the following tie


The occupation of the dwelling hereby granted full planning permission shall be limited to a persons or persons solely or mainly employed in the locality (ie within a radius of 30 miles of the dwelling) in agriculture or the keeping and training of horses (as defined in Section 336 of the Town and country Planning Act 1990) or in forestry.


I own five horses, not employed in the equine industry but would be planning on using the property as a stud farm and also use the land to make hay.
Would my partner and I be able to buy? I spend over 40 hours a week with the horses and this would likely go up with it being a stud farm. I do also work full time elsewhere. Partner is a self employed commercial fisherman but doesn't work Nov to April so he could also get an agricultural job during the winter.

Freecall

Xmissy84X wrote: »

limited to a persons or persons solely or mainly employed in the locality (ie within a radius of 30 miles of the dwelling) in agriculture or the keeping and training of horses

I think that you have answered your own question.

Running a business on the side or just in the winter months doesn't count. If it did, everyone would do it and get cheaper houses.

Davesnave

It is unusual to have a condition which deliberately includes training horses, as equestrian concerns don't normally fall within the scope of agricultural ties:

Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines ‘agriculture' as including:

• ‘horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming;
• the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land);
• the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens or nursery grounds; and
• the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes.’ (source DEFRA)

The tie specifically says "keeping and training," so to comply you'd be expected to do both, and for these activities to make up the greater part of your working hours. Therefore, if your other job was, say, 34 hours, you could still meet the condition.

However, it seems to me that your keeping of horses at present is a hobby rather than work, and even if extended into breeding and stud activities, it still wouldn't be within the narrow limits of this tie.

With equestrianism normally excluded from 'agricultural' status, I've struggled to imagine exactly what a condition like this could mean within the Act. The only activity I can come up with involving training, would be that required for horses used in land management and forestry. That seems incredibly narrow!

If I were you, I'd try to find out more regarding the history of the property, as that's where a true understanding of this planning condition can be found.

smileygareth

I'm sorry to resurrect an old thread but was wondering if some of the excellent posters on here could offer some advice.

Similarly to so many posters on this thread my fiance and I are looking at a property with an AOC and standard wording (solely or mainly), it has about 10 acres.

I am a vet (small animal and horses) and she works for an animal charity (donkeys), my father is a sheep farmer. I know that neither of our jobs qualify as agricultural work but I would consider dropping my vet work to 3 days a week and using the other 4 to farm a flock of sheep (60-80) with a view to amalgamating that flock with my father's once he retires and we move back to his farm (different county and probably 10 years in the future).

I called the local planning authority to informally speak to a planning officer about whether that pattern of working (4 days sheep, 3 days vet) would comply with the AOC. She said not as the farming would be part time and sheep would not be considered viable enough to comply with the condition (pigs and poultry would apparently, if done full time).

My understanding of this and other threads was that the 'mainly' was based on time rather than recompense. The property has been advertised for 8 months and not sold.

I was going to e-mail the planning department just asking for clarification as to what point 'mainly' becomes 'mainly' and also ask at what point of being unsold does the LA consider an occupant that is part-time is better than having the restriction lifted due to no interested/qualifying parties but thought I would ask the knowledgeable people on here first.

Many thanks in advance.

Davesnave

smileygareth wrote: »

I called the local planning authority to informally speak to a planning officer about whether that pattern of working (4 days sheep, 3 days vet) would comply with the AOC. She said not as the farming would be part time and sheep would not be considered viable enough to comply with the condition (pigs and poultry would apparently, if done full time).

While she is right in terms of gaining permission for a completely new build, this officer may well be unrealistic by treating an existing property in the same manner, especially in places where the chances of someone investing heavily in pigs or poultry could be close to zero.

True, I have just seen someone invest a huge amount in chickens near me, but the number of times that happens is almost as rare these days as the proverbial chickens' teeth! It was an existing business expanding; not a new owner or start-up.

For similar reasons, very few people are going into pig production, because unless they are able to add value themselves after slaughter, there's nothing to be made from it.

The property I live in was built for a pig farm manager, but that ceased to be viable some time in the late 1980s, when, coincidentally, the local vet rented it. He was chiefly a farm vet, and it's a pity you're not, and that you are honest enough to disclose that!

I think it might be hard to justify 80 sheep as taking up 4 days a week, unless yours are much less well-behaved than mine. However, perhaps the answer lies in diversification and adding a few hens and a pig or two.

Is this planning officer seriously intending to go through your books to work out profit and so on? As I said before, proving the viability of a business in order to build a new residence in the countryside, should not be confused with eligibility for buying an existing Ag Tied place.

I've said on numerous occasions that in my area planning officers are far too busy to chase non-compliance, so there are breaches all over the place. Nevertheless, they are most reluctant to remove ties, and I'm sure that 8 months would be in no way long enough to constitute a full test of the market here. 18 months is more like it.

If you have ID'd yourself to the council, I see nothing to lose by taking this further with them by letter, or even better, by a face to face exchange of views and ideas. Sometimes, things go better if nothing's committed to paper!

smileygareth

Hi Dave,


Thank you for your comprehensive reply and apologies for not responding, I was expecting an e-mail if someone replied to the thread and it was only when I checked the thread that I saw your reply.


I have decided to sit and bide my time regarding this property in the hope that closer to the 18 month mark the local planning department would be more inclined to look favourably on such a plan rather than remove the AOC. If something else comes up in the meantime then so be it.


Thanks again for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated.