what does it mean when a property for sale states this?

elise72

it says, ' this property is subject to an agricultural occupancy restriction' , what does this mean?

thanks

hethmar

It means anyone buying it has to be employed in agriculture.

bluejake

elise72 wrote: »

it says, ' this property is subject to an agricultural occupancy restriction' , what does this mean?

thanks

The buyer must work in farming.

confused31_2

just turn up in your wellys when you go to view, you should be okay then;)

Richard_Webster

You can't get an ordinary residential mortgage on it so it is worth round about 30% less than a similar property without the restriction.

Also see this thread which has more about the point: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=485058

elise72

Thanks Richard for posting that link, you explain it very well.

Actually the OP in that link is asking the question because of the very same reason i was asking, my parents want to view a property that has a paddock and a stable block but no mention of the property being curently used for agricultural purposes, so we were a little bemused at to why the agricultural clause was applied.

Thanks again.

barnaby-bear

elise72 wrote: »

Thanks Richard for posting that link, you explain it very well.

Actually the OP in that link is asking the question because of the very same reason i was asking, my parents want to view a property that has a paddock and a stable block but no mention of the property being curently used for agricultural purposes, so we were a little bemused at to why the agricultural clause was applied.

Thanks again.

Farmer usually gets planning permission for something that would never be allowed otherwise by arguing its to home his son who works on the farm.... the restriction means farmer can't sell it on for a profit to anyone.... just someone employed in local agriculture which is why it was allowed in the first place....

planning_officer

Dwellings that are subject to an agricultural occupancy condition are located in rural areas where development is strictly controlled - planning permission would not normally be granted for a new dwelling in such locations - like in the Green Belt for example - unless they are to meet an identified need for agricultural workers in the locality. The dwellings that were permitted in the 1960s and 1970s generally had a condition which was very strict, worded along the lines of the occupier shall work within a 3 mile radius of the property in agriculture.

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.'

The more recently permitted dwellings have a similar condition, but less strict, which omits the reference to 3 mile radius and instead states that the occupier shall be working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture. It is pretty easy to apply to vary an older condition to have it reworded along the lines of the more recent ones.

In terms of getting an agricultural restriction lifted - this is pretty difficult! After all, the dwelling would not have been allowed in the first place if it hadn’t been intended for an agricultural worker. As a minimum, you will need to have put the house on the market for around 2 years, clearly advertising the agricultural tie and you will need to justify the asking price - as previously mentioned, around a 30% reduction on the normal, unrestricted market value. You will need to supply comprehensive details of the marketing, including a full marketing campaign to local agricultural holdings, together with full advertising in the national farming publications and the local press, copies of all adverts, details of how many viewings were conducted, what the responses from the viewings were, feedback received, why people were put off, and details of any offers received. Obviously, if you receive any genuine and reasonable offers, it would be difficult to justify that the dwelling is no longer needed for an agricultural worker in the locality. The Council will also look at any other applications for agricultural workers dwellings in the locality over the past, say, 5 years or so - as if there are any such applications, this indicates a demand for such dwellings and means your property is likely to be required to be retained purely for an agricultural workers dwelling.

One exception I have come across in dealing with several such applications and appeals against refusals, is that if the property is worth a huge amount, then Appeal Inspectors do sometimes take the view that even with a reduction in the marketing price, the dwelling is unlikely to attract an agricultural worker or even a retired farmer. Therefore, this can make it easier to get the restriction lifted. One example was a house I dealt with that was worth £1.4 million - obviously it had been considerably extended and land values had risen a lot, but the Inspector stated that even with a 30% reduction, the house was still worth more than anyone working in agriculture or a retired farmer could reasonably afford, and allowed the appeal.

planning_officer

Sorry for the small type above - I've deleted my post several times and tried to increase the font size, but it keeps reverting to this...!!

socrates

planning office - can I ask you a question in private?

planning_officer

elise72 wrote: »

Thanks Richard for posting that link, you explain it very well.

Actually the OP in that link is asking the question because of the very same reason i was asking, my parents want to view a property that has a paddock and a stable block but no mention of the property being curently used for agricultural purposes, so we were a little bemused at to why the agricultural clause was applied.

Thanks again.

I would also point out that an equestrian use does not fall under the definition of agriculture - whilst grazing animals does (including grazing horses), rarely are horses actually grazed on the land - usually hay and feed is brought onto the site, and then the use is for equestrian purposes and not agriculture, which requires planning permission. So, if the previous owner has been working in an equestrian capacity, they may unwittingly have not been complying with the agricultural occupancy condition. If that's the case, and they haven't complied with it for a continuous period of at least the last 10 years, thay could apply for a Lawful Development Certificate to show that the dwelling has been lived in without complying with the condition. If granted, then the dwelling would in effect be free from its agricultural tie. The downside is obviously, for a purchaser, that the marketing price of the property will rise by around 30%!