Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Help please!

Diver_Sam

I don't know much about Agricultural Occupancy Conditions but I've got a general idea from researching the web. Any advice out there would be gratefully received. I've seen a derelict property which is up for sale with an estate agent, it looks as though it's been empty for a good while and is in desperate need of repair. It's being sold with an AOC. It is located next to a working farm who also run a B&B from their farmhouse and some newly built cottages, which clearly had recent planning permission.

What would the possiblility be of having the AOC removed or should I stay clear. The sale includes the property and a good size garden, so I'm not talking acres of land (not even 1/2 acre) so there's no chance of farming it.

ILW

Bear in mind that if the condition is lifted, the price will go up accordingly.

G_M

They are notoriously hard to get lifted. You could try talking it over with someone at the local planning dept, but as ILW says, if it's lifted it will suddenly become a developers dream...

olias

And if it belongs to the farm, they have already given an indication that they are fnancially and planning wise savvy (holiday cottages and b&b), so I think it unlikely that you will be able to a deal on it. Best case scenario is that they would offer for sale with AOC and you take your chances once you are in possesion, or you manage to get planning to remove the AOC and they put the price up by 200%

Oh and AOC does not just mean that the property is used for farming, but can mean that the occupant must be employed locally in agriculture (or be a dependant of, or retired from blah blah), so the size of the land is not relevant.

Olias

Richard_Webster

Farmer is probably advertising it for sale with AOC in order to demonstrate to Local Planning Authority (LPA)that he has done so for 12-18 Months (depending on local criteria) and nobody has been interested so he can get the AOC lifted.

If you do buy it with the AOC the LPA are not going to be very sympathetic and will certainly require you to start the advertising process all over again (and this can be very expensive because they usually require that you advertise regularly in local papers).

googler

Richard_Webster wrote: »

If you do buy it with the AOC the LPA are not going to be very sympathetic and will certainly require you to start the advertising process all over again (and this can be very expensive because they usually require that you advertise regularly in local papers).

How regularly? My LA planning dept requires one advert in the local press and that's it ...

Richard_Webster

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Webster
If you do buy it with the AOC the LPA are not going to be very sympathetic and will certainly require you to start the advertising process all over again (and this can be very expensive because they usually require that you advertise regularly in local papers).
How regularly? My LA planning dept requires one advert in the local press and that's it ...

Obviously the precise details of the policy will vary from area to area and I was only giving a general indication to OP that this was something he needed to check.

Jonnylandagent

Greetings everyone. I have come across this thread whilst researching planning conditions. and see that there is some expertise here. Maybe I could get the planning officer/solicitors thoughts on my case? I do have some experience of these conditions but haven't been able to get answers to my questions - even the planning officer who would deal with my application can't help.

My house was built in 1954 to serve a farm which has since been split up. It is subject to something which looks like an AOC but it is actually very different in practice. There is no reference to the 'locality' and it also permits occupation by people working in industries 'mainly dependent on agriculture' I have already agreed the scope of this with the LPA and they accept that this includes, for example, people working for supermarkets. It could of course include people from abroad, such as a large percentage of the 500m people in the EU.

Analysis of an AOC suggests that the number of eligible occupants would be around 100. Analysis of the actual condition suggests maybe 100,000,000 potential occupants, ie ratio of a million to one.

I have suggested the condition should be removed because it serves no useful purpose and doesn't comply with the six tests set out in Circular 11/95. The planning officer agrees but says that if I apply they will replace it with an AOC because the house was originally built for a farm worker.

Firstly, I think they are wrong. Taken as a whole the condition isn't an aoc. They can't claim it's meant to be one because case law says they can rely only on the actual wording. The conditon is what the conditon says it is. It might be an occupancy condition but with a ratio of 1:1m it's not an agricultural one as described in the local plan. Imposing one now doesn't appear justified.

Secondly they can't tell me how it would work in practice. If they grant planning to remove it subject to a new AOC being imposed, what will trigger the change? Will the old condition immediately be rendered invalid? If so how will they deal with me - I comply with the current condition but not with an AOC. They don't seem to know. If there is no way of triggering the new condition it will be worthless.

Thirdly, if the new AOC does replace the old one the house will be devalued by at least £100k. Will I be entitled to compensation for their decision? This could be a key point in dissuading them.

Fourthly, do they have the power to impose a new, retrospective condition?

Finally, would this conflict with the Human Rights legislation?

Any help gratefully received!!

Jonathan

agtag

I provide the following information with the hope of being useful but do not accept any liability other than to fee paying clients. I am a Planning Consultant who specialises in AOC's, removal, compliance, lawful use.

You say it is not an AOC... Is it a Section 106 or Section 52 Agreement, or is the condition set out upon the original planning document? Either way, if there is some form of wording that still exists, one assumes it remains valid and must be complied with.

I am horrified at the advice received from the LPA informing that a supermarket worker could comply due the term 'an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture'. I refer you to the House of Lords decision Fawcett Properties of 1961, in particular, Lord Jenkins advice where he adduced that someone employed in (for instance) a fruit canning factory was employed in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture because the canning factory was clearly dependant upon the activity of fruit growing, and fruit growing is included within the definition of agriculture. The link has to be reasonbly strong and clear, and, in my view, not as tenuous as 'working in a supermarket'...

As for the Council changing the condition... If you put in an application to remove the condition, the Council has 3 options... It can choose to refuse it, approve it and remove the condition or approve it and impose the current model condition. Harsh, but true! This would not conflict with human rights as the rights of the greater poplation (i.e. in reserving the house for those employed in agriculture AND protecting the countryside outweigh this).

If you want to remove the condition, you have to prove (with evidence) that the condition serves no useful purpose such that one cannot justify its continued retention. Marketing is a key factor in proving this point and, in this case, you would need to prove that there is no need for the property with the current condition or indeed the current model condition, if you are to avoid the scenario of the old wording being replaced with the new.

If they did approve and remove the old condition and replace with the current model condition, if you remained in compliance with the old but did not comply with the new, the new planning permission would not be implemented and, in essence, you would be back where you started. But there will be 3 or 5 years to impliment the new planning permission and with it hovering in the background, the chances are this will adversely affect the value of your property for which there is unlikely to be any form of compensation.

It is a veritable minefield and I hope this is of some assistance.

Jonnylandagent

Thanks very much - this is indeed helpful.

The wording is set out in a planning condition and is being complied with.

I am preparing evidence and continuing my discussions with the planners. I'll let you know if I make any progress.

Jonathan

planning_officer

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

My house was built in 1954 to serve a farm which has since been split up. It is subject to something which looks like an AOC but it is actually very different in practice. There is no reference to the 'locality' and it also permits occupation by people working in industries 'mainly dependent on agriculture' I have already agreed the scope of this with the LPA and they accept that this includes, for example, people working for supermarkets. It could of course include people from abroad, such as a large percentage of the 500m people in the EU.

Like the poster above, I too do not agree with your Council's interpretation of this condition - working in a supermarket is certainly not employed in agriculture (or in an industry dependent on it)!

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

I have suggested the condition should be removed because it serves no useful purpose and doesn't comply with the six tests set out in Circular 11/95. The planning officer agrees but says that if I apply they will replace it with an AOC because the house was originally built for a farm worker.

In terms of Circular 11/95, it's difficult to advise without knowing the exact wording of the condition - the condition was obviously considered necessary when the house was built, and given the time that has passed it is difficult to argue that it is 'ultra vires' now, without having detailed documentation as to why it was originally imposed (and that documentation from 1954 may no longer exist).

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

Firstly, I think they are wrong. Taken as a whole the condition isn't an aoc. They can't claim it's meant to be one because case law says they can rely only on the actual wording. The conditon is what the conditon says it is. It might be an occupancy condition but with a ratio of 1:1m it's not an agricultural one as described in the local plan. Imposing one now doesn't appear justified.

I don't really follow this - I think you need to post the wording of the condition. Surely the condition does not specify ratios? You say above that it includes the words 'mainly dependent on agriculture' - that sounds like an AOC to me!

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

Secondly they can't tell me how it would work in practice. If they grant planning to remove it subject to a new AOC being imposed, what will trigger the change? Will the old condition immediately be rendered invalid? If so how will they deal with me - I comply with the current condition but not with an AOC. They don't seem to know. If there is no way of triggering the new condition it will be worthless.

Again, need to know the wording to advise properly. The old condition can be replaced by a more up-to-date one. Older aOCs generally restricted agricultural workers to be working within a 3 mile radius of the dwelling, whereas newer conditions just restrict someone to be 'working in the locality' - that wording complies fully with Circular 11/95, as it's one of the model conditions contained in the Circular! The new condition would then just replace the old one (in effect a new planning permission is granted, with the new condition taking effect).

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.

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

Thirdly, if the new AOC does replace the old one the house will be devalued by at least £100k. Will I be entitled to compensation for their decision? This could be a key point in dissuading them.

No - no compensation will be forthcoming.

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

Fourthly, do they have the power to impose a new, retrospective condition?

Yes - if it is justified.

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

Finally, would this conflict with the Human Rights legislation?

No - the planning system as a whole has widely been accepted to comply with Human Rights legislation and this argument is generally a waste of time.

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.