Agricultural Occupancy Condition

perrow

planning_officer wrote: »

Will do - I'll look it up at work next week as I can't remember it off the top of my head!

Hi, sorry to be a nuisance but any info on the case details yet? It applies to me at the moment so i am very keen to get all the info i can. Many thanks.

planning_officer

So sorry for late reply! Yes, it's Wood v. S.O.S. 17/3/94 (Great Yarmouth Borough Council) DCS No. 051570387. Here an Inspector found that the proportion of the household income derived from the wife's agricultural work was only 16% and she earned less than half of what her husband earned, who worked in non-agricultural employment. The wife worked 25 hrs per week in agriculture, amounting to some 60% of her working week and about 52% of the normal working week of a farm worker. It was concluded that the wife was 'mainly employed' in agriculture and her husband was her dependent in that he depended on her to maintain their standard of living (i.e. stay in the ag-tied dwelling).

An Inspector originally came to the opposite conclusion in this case, and when it was referred to the Court, the Court said that the Inspector had not considered it correctly - when it was reconsidered, the Inspector came to the conclusion above.

NoviceBuyer

Hi,
Im new to this forum as my name suggests.

Id be grateful for any views/advice you could offer on the following:
Im looking at the possibility of buying 6 acres which has PP for a 3 bed bungalow on it. This has a AOC attached.
The PP was granted and the building stated 30 yours ago! I understand that this was dont to persist the PP indefinitely.

The above being so would the fact that no one employed in agriculture completed the structure hold any sway when trying to get the AOG removed?

Im not in 'agraculture' though would like to keep pigs, sheep and chickens if i obtain the land. Also Im in the Army currently thought will be leaving in the next 6 months.

Thanks for any information you can provide.

Nenen

Thanks for a great thread and lots of good advice. I'd be really grateful if anyone could advise on the following scenario... We've just seen a property with an agricultural tie. Neither of us is currently employed in agriculture but we'd really like to start up a cattery, breeding Rag Doll cats and looking after pets for people on holiday. Would this be considered to be an agricultural occupation and would we be able to buy a property with an agricultural tie like this prior to starting the business? There is only an acre of land so it couldn't sustain much else. I would need to stay in my current job to get the mortgage and would then hope to go part-time, building up the cattery business with dh's help (he would remain working part-time in other work too).

Davesnave

I think this hinges on whether running a cattery counts as agriculture
as defined in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
I'm sure others better qualified to judge will be along to advise on this, but a quick Google has revealed the following local authority statement in a recommendation to refuse planning on cattery buildings in the Peak District:

'The proposed new build development for a cattery is not agriculture and therefore without agricultural justification for the buildings, the proposal is contrary to policies C6, C5, C2 and GS1.
The site is in private residential ownership and does not form part of a farm business and hence farm diversification policies also do not apply.'

I'm adding this to give this thread a bump, in the hope that others who know more will see it, but the above doesn't look good from your POV.

Debt_Free_Chick

It's defined in s336 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990

"agriculture” 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 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 and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly;

Agriculture is, essentially, food production. Equestrian use and other uses associated with horses is not agriculture. Forestry is not agriculture. Allotments are considered to be "recreation" and not (commercial) food production.

Cattery is definitely NOT agriculture

Nenen

Thanks very much Davesnave and DFC . It doesn't look very hopeful and I'm probably clutching at straws but where the definition states "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)"

wouldn't that include the keeping and breeding of cats as it says breeding and keeping of livestock including .... not solely in connection with production of food or use in farming? On that basis I don't understand why equestrian ventures would be excluded either. It is sooo difficult to find somewhere that already has permission for cattery etc in this area without paying an absolute fortune or risk driving the neighbours mad and infringing residential planning laws... it seems something like this falls between agriculture and residential. I was really hoping that this might be a way forward. Back to the drawing board I guess!

barnaby-bear

Nenen wrote: »

Thanks very much Davesnave and DFC . It doesn't look very hopeful and I'm probably clutching at straws but where the definition states "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)"

wouldn't that include the keeping and breeding of cats as it says breeding and keeping of livestock including .... not solely in connection with production of food or use in farming? On that basis I don't understand why equestrian ventures would be excluded either. It is sooo difficult to find somewhere that already has permission for cattery etc in this area without paying an absolute fortune or risk driving the neighbours mad and infringing residential planning laws... it seems something like this falls between agriculture and residential. I was really hoping that this might be a way forward. Back to the drawing board I guess!

Cats aren't livestock for the road traffic law - if you hit a cow you legally have to stop/report it.... you can mow down as many cats as you want and don't have to stop.

Nenen

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Cats aren't livestock for the road traffic law - if you hit a cow you legally have to stop/report it.... you can mow down as many cats as you want and don't have to stop.

I know you're right BB but.........:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: at the thought of mowing down lots of cats! I find it bad enough when a big moth hits the windscreen!

I think you do have to report running a dog over though... does this mean dogs are livestock and we could open a kennels? Only joking as I really wouldn't want to look after other people's dogs... love our own dogs but don't like dealing with unknown dogs. Wouldn't mind small scale dog breeding though. Hmmmm... maybe breeding Border Collies to use as sheepdogs is the answer! I spent years (before having children) doing agility and obedience with Bearded Collies, so maybe that would be a possibility.

Debt_Free_Chick

The breeding & keeping of livestock is agriculture. As is (for the purpose of the T&C Act) any other creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land.

Cats (and dogs) fall into neither category.