Renting a house with an agricultural tie

downshifter

Dear all
A farmer friend of mine has a small barn on his land for which he has, after a lot of hard work and a fortune in consultant's fees, received planning permission to convert to a house. His argument was that it was needed to house farmworkers. That was a couple of years ago and work has since been underway to do the conversion - albeit slowly. At the time of the permission being granted he had to submit accounts, stock lists, refs from the vet and other stuff to support his claim that this was needed. However, it now seems that none of his workers want to live there and have made other arrangements and while I suppose he might employ someone in the future who might just want a house, at present it looks as though the place will stand empty which seems wrong.

He was wondering what sort of reception he might receive if he applied to have the tie lifted, perhaps in favour of some other sort of clause, for example restricting renting it to a local person or something else? It would never be for sale - nor would he want it to be - as it's slap bang in the middle of a field, with poor access - you need to go through his farmyard to get to it. The farm is very viable, unlikely to be sold as it's been in the family for decades so it would only ever be a rental. The other option is a holiday cottage but he doesn't really have the time to support that sort of business. Failing any of that, what sorts of occupations are included in 'agricultural work'? Stockman, dairyman etc are obvious, but what about cleaner for the family? Or farm secretary?

Does anyone have any ideas of what might be an alternative to leaving this property empty? Thanks
DS

Richard_Webster

He could let it to people not employed in agriculture. If he does so continuously for 10 years and the Council don't find out then he can apply for a certificate of lawful use without the condition. He must make sure that it isn't empty for very long between lets because the Council will use a void period to say that the breach of condition wasn't continuous. He will need to keep copies of tenancy agreements and obtain proof (e.g. employer's references) that shows the tenants do not work in agriculture.

downshifter

Richard_Webster wrote: »

He could let it to people not employed in agriculture. If he does so continuously for 10 years and the Council don't find out then he can apply for a certificate of lawful use without the condition. He must make sure that it isn't empty for very long between lets because the Council will use a void period to say that the breach of condition wasn't continuous. He will need to keep copies of tenancy agreements and obtain proof (e.g. employer's references) that shows the tenants do not work in agriculture.

Thank you Richard. What would happen if the Council were to find out? Would the tenant be evicted? Would my friend receive a massive fine? Or?

Geenie

He should check the HMRC as well. If it is being taxed under agricultural relief which is very generous, but not being used under those rules.

RLH33

If you were to let or allow someone to live in a property with an agricultural tie who did not work in agriculture or are retired, having last worked in agriculture, then you would be in breach of your planning permission. If the Council found out then the owner would be at risk of enforcement action. If the enforcement action was successful then the tenants would have to be evicted in order to comply with the enforcement notice.

I doubt whether the reception from the Council to have the tie lifted would be very good, you have to understand that these ties are only put on because the use as a dwelling is only acceptable because it is for agricultural. It is allowed under a particular piece of planning policy that allows housing in the green belt where it would otherwise be completely out of the question. Letting it to a 'local person' would not overcome the problem and saying that it would never be sold cuts no ice with the planning department.

downshifter

Thanks everyone for your information as well as your personal views. In fact this young man is completely honest and just wants to do the right thing - he hates the idea that a house should be empty. (and no I'm not a relative or anything, nor any vested interest, just an interested friend). Obviously it increases the value of his farm so that he can hand down a viable business to his sons and daughter as his father did before him as well as his grandfather previously. He is very disappointed that the farmworker in question has turned down the house but that's the way it is. I imagine he will complete the renovation and then leave it empty until he needs to advertise for another staff member and hope it will be taken up then. He is trying to do the decent thing, by trying to find someone local who is in need of reasonably priced rural rented housing, very thin on the ground round here. My question about what would happen if he was found out was purely a factual question in response to Richard's very helpful equally factual advice. The barn would never be sold unless the whole farm was, and as I said, it's presently profitable - the accounts for the past 5 years are public knowledge having been part of the planning permission request.

And artfulldodger, if you send me your contact details I will take you up on the bet, knowing this family I absolutely know you would lose! Your cynicism is vey sad though, it really isn't very fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

I don't know anything about subsidies in relation to this barn, I'm pretty certain he hasn't had any grants etc for the house renovation.
Thanks again, DS

Geenie

RLH33 wrote: »

If you were to let or allow someone to live in a property with an agricultural tie who did not work in agriculture or are retired, having last worked in agriculture, then you would be in breach of your planning permission. If the Council found out then the owner would be at risk of enforcement action. If the enforcement action was successful then the tenants would have to be evicted in order to comply with the enforcement notice.

I doubt whether the reception from the Council to have the tie lifted would be very good, you have to understand that these ties are only put on because the use as a dwelling is only acceptable because it is for agricultural. It is allowed under a particular piece of planning policy that allows housing in the green belt where it would otherwise be completely out of the question. Letting it to a 'local person' would not overcome the problem and saying that it would never be sold cuts no ice with the planning department.

If I read the OP's post correctly, it was initially converted to house farm workers, but these workers don't want it now. If the farmer can show that no local agricultural workers want it, then surely they can let it to someone else, rather then leave empty! This may entail letting to a family who wants to keep goats etc, but surely it can still be let outside the farm business!

downshifter

Geenie wrote: »

If I read the OP's post correctly, it was initially converted to house farm workers, but these workers don't want it now. If the farmer can show that no local agricultural workers want it, then surely they can let it to someone else, rather then leave empty! This may entail letting to a family who wants to keep goats etc, but surely it can still be let outside the farm business!

Thanks Geenie. Yes that's exactly his point and why I asked the question on here. As you say, surely the council wouldn't want to leave it empty. He would be happy if some other clause was put on it such as local worker or whatever else is available and would also be happy to keep the rent below market level if there was perhaps a suitable local housing association tenant. It is in the middle of nowhere however, so the tenant would need own transport and be happy to live in the middle of a field of cows and sheep! But lots would if only the tie could be lifted.
DS

Geenie

downshifter wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your information as well as your personal views. In fact this young man is completely honest and just wants to do the right thing - he hates the idea that a house should be empty. (and no I'm not a relative or anything, nor any vested interest, just an interested friend). Obviously it increases the value of his farm so that he can hand down a viable business to his sons and daughter as his father did before him as well as his grandfather previously. He is very disappointed that the farmworker in question has turned down the house but that's the way it is. I imagine he will complete the renovation and then leave it empty until he needs to advertise for another staff member and hope it will be taken up then. He is trying to do the decent thing, by trying to find someone local who is in need of reasonably priced rural rented housing, very thin on the ground round here. My question about what would happen if he was found out was purely a factual question in response to Richard's very helpful equally factual advice. The barn would never be sold unless the whole farm was, and as I said, it's presently profitable - the accounts for the past 5 years are public knowledge having been part of the planning permission request.

And artfulldodger, if you send me your contact details I will take you up on the bet, knowing this family I absolutely know you would lose! Your cynicism is vey sad though, it really isn't very fair to tar everyone with the same brush.

I don't know anything about subsidies in relation to this barn, I'm pretty certain he hasn't had any grants etc for the house renovation.
Thanks again, DS

Tell your friend good luck. The properties we let are all on our farm. Once houses for fellow workers, but now no longer required in the 21st century as one man can do what several did a hundred years ago. We let to non agricultural, young families who keep the local community going and support the local school etc.

Don't be put off by some posters.

Richard_Webster

If the farmer can show that no local agricultural workers want it, then surely they can let it to someone else, rather then leave empty!

Well, yes, in theory you could apply to have the tie lifted. Given the recent history I think the Council will be highly sceptical. They would ask him e.g. to demonstrate that he advertised the property for sale or letting for a period may be of 12-18 months on a regular basis with the ag-tie. He would have to prove the adverts and produce details of the response or lack of it. (They will say that it could be let to another farmer's workers or sold to other farmer to house his workers!)

downshifter

Richard_Webster wrote: »

Well, yes, in theory you could apply to have the tie lifted. Given the recent history I think the Council will be highly sceptical. They would ask him e.g. to demonstrate that he advertised the property for sale or letting for a period may be of 12-18 months on a regular basis with the ag-tie. He would have to prove the adverts and produce details of the response or lack of it. (They will say that it could be let to another farmer's workers or sold to other farmer to house his workers!)

Thanks Richard, that's helpful as ever. I don't think he'd actually thought of advertising it for agricultural workers from other farms but that's a good idea. He had to make such a big deal of how much he needed a worker to be nearby in case of calving emergencies etc which is one reason the PP was granted. But he might be able to let it to other farmworkers, though there aren't really any around. But worth trying. He would never try to sell it, it's too much part of the farm, no direct access to the road etc but another farm worker might not mind having to go through farmyard and out over the hill to get to it. Excellent idea, I'll let him know. Thanks. He wouldn't be bothered about removing the tie clause if he could just let it one way or another.

DS