Renting a house with an agricultural tie

planning_officer

Yes the agricultural tie will restrict the dwelling to be occupied by someone working (or last working) in the locality in agriculture - it doesn't have to be someone employed on this particular farm. Most Council's require a thorough marketing exercise before even contemplating removing a tie (like Richard says above) - at my Council, it is 2 years, and it has to be very thorough. To be quite honest, it is highly unlikely that the restriction will be lifted, given that the dwelling has only just been converted - if you were able to prove a demand for such a dwelling 2 years ago, then from the Council's point of view, that demand will still exist.

One other point - he can let it to someone who was last employed in agriculture (i.e. a farm worker looking for a new job) as well as someone currently employed in agriculture. Also, retired farmers are eligible under the tie, as they were 'last working in agriculture'.

Debt_Free_Chick

downshifter wrote: »

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.

Some rural land agents specialise in this so it's worth looking for one locally. The architect or whoever drew up the plans might be able to recommend someone.

i1189

Could your friend rent the house out to someone willing to do some part time work on the farm (maybe Saturdays?) in return for a reduced rent?

Not sure if that would still count as a "farm worker", but there could be people around who would like reduced rent in return for some work.

planning_officer

i1189 wrote: »

Could your friend rent the house out to someone willing to do some part time work on the farm (maybe Saturdays?) in return for a reduced rent?

Not sure if that would still count as a "farm worker", but there could be people around who would like reduced rent in return for some work.

In order for that to comply with the agricultural occupancy condition, the agricultural work would have to be the only work the person living there was doing - he/she couldn't have another job, otherwise they wouldn't be 'mainly employed in agriculture'.

lostinrates

planning_officer wrote: »

In order for that to comply with the agricultural occupancy condition, the agricultural work would have to be the only work the person living there was doing - he/she couldn't have another job, otherwise they wouldn't be 'mainly employed in agriculture'.

lol, it would suit me

downshifter

Sorry to bump this back up again, but I was talking at the weekend to the farmer who has the house as described here. He is very little further on with the renovations, having been disheartened when the farmworker turned it down, though all services and a proper track are now connected. It isn't in a fit state for immediate habitation or to start advertising in any formal way, though he has asked informally and had no real interest and thinks it unlikely. His agricultural needs assessment showed that he needed another full time or 2 part time workers to be within shouting distance of the farm, so he has since taken on another worker, who yet again, isn't in need of a cottage.

To cut war and peace short, he is now wondering whether he could let someone live in it rent free - would that contravene planning rules? He thinks that a retired friend of the family who they would be keen to help out, would be interested maybe. He so wants it to be used and not stand empty which he thinks is just criminal!

Thanks for all the ideas as well as the pms I received last time I asked about this.

DS

Richard_Webster

If he allows someone else to live there rent free then unless they qualify as a farm worker or retired farmworker there will still be a breach of condition.

If he wants to be clean open and above board there is little he can do.

In practice I suspect a lot of people in a similar position would simply let to someone else, keep a low profile and tell them to do so. Do that for 10 years continually and then apply for a certificate of lawful use.

Councils can't possibly check every property so will generally only do so if they have a complaint or there is some obvious non-agricultural activity at the property that would attract their attention. If it is in the middle of a holding being actively farmed it will not be obvious that the occupiers of this dwelling are not working on the farm.

I've known a case where e.g. a detached house on a 4 acre field with an ag tie had been in breach for 10+ years but there was a void period when it was not let at all. Council did nothing about it and only refused the eventual application for a certificate of lawful use because of the void period - the use had not been continuous.

downshifter

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If he allows someone else to live there rent free then unless they qualify as a farm worker or retired farmworker there will still be a breach of condition.

If he wants to be clean open and above board there is little he can do. .

Thanks Richard, yes this is how I read it - your knowledge just confirms it. It looks as though the house will always stand empty in that case - such a shame! I'll give him a ring in the morning and let him know what you've said.

Thanks again

DS

[Deleted User]

Could he consider housing someone that would be willing to work on the farm on a part time basis, so count as an agricultural worker.., perhaps be allowed to use part of the field as a garden/vegetable plot. I am sure there would be people who would jump at the chance of this and a low rent. I know I would lol. I am not sure what the agricultural tie restrictions are.., but if this does not demand past agricultural work, I am certain there would be a few townies willing to work and learn agricultural work in return for a low rent place to live. I know the person would have to be carefully screened (as the reality may not live up to the dream) but there must be someone out there that would grab the opportunity with both hands.

Foggster

Would he be OK to let this out as a holiday let? I know you mentioned it but said your friend wasnt interested in running the business. I am sure there would be plenty of people in the local area who would be willing to work for your friend and run the holiday business for him. This way he would not only have the house being used but giving a local person a job. My friend looked after 3 holiday cottages for a number of years, the owner lived some 400 miles away and paid her a % of revenue.

I lived in tied accomodation for a number of years when with an ex who was a farm worker. We never took a cottage on the farm because there was an assumption that you would always be available day and night for call outs. Many farm workers try and put a few miles between them and the farm!!

Did he ever investigate letting a cleaner or farm secretary live there?