Agricultural Occupancy Condition - Help please!

Jonnylandagent

Thanks very much indeed for the most detailed reply. You've raised a few questions and I'll answer them over the next 24 hours.

Thanks.

Jonathan

Jonnylandagent

As before, thanks very much for all your help. The information provided will certainly help me hone my case. Here are the further details

The planning officer has already agreed the current condition doesn’t meet the Circular 11/95 tests so I don’t think removing the condition is the issue. The question is imposing an AOC in its place. I don’t expect my application to be easy but I am putting forward what I regard as a logical argument.

For further background, I haven’t had the house valued but think it would be worth in the order of £600k without any condition and not much less with the current one.

The condition is as follows:

that the house be occupied only by persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by Section 119(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or in forestry, or in an industry mainly dependant on agriculture, and also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid.’

Note that there is also no reference to the locality.

I agreed the nature and scope of eligible occupants with the LPA when I extended the house three years ago – they originally opposed the application on the basis the house should be reserved for farm workers and shouldn’t be increased in value, but I persuaded them to support it, using some of the information I am now using. To be fair they haven’t specifically agreed that people ‘working in supermarkets’ would be included but they have accepted people ‘working in food retailing’ which in my mind covers this. They have also accepted many other dependent occupations.

The Local Plan provides for new dwellings in the open countryside for ‘agricultural’ or ‘other operational need’. ‘Agriculture’ is defined in the legislation and the LPA has told me what they regard as ‘employment in’ agriculture. I suggest therefore that someone ‘working in agriculture’ is a clearly defined class of occupant and that an ‘agricultural occupancy condition’ relates specifically to them. The Local Plan refers to AOC’s on this basis.

It also follows that as the Plan recognises other, non-agricultural needs and thus occupants, it recognises non-agricultural occupancy conditions. This for me is the main issue and I am seeking to demonstrate by analysis that the condition attached to my house is a non-agricultural occupancy condition.

The Plan refers to how applications to remove an AOC will be dealt with but doesn’t have any policies for dealing with the removal of non-agricultural occupancy conditions.

In my area there are less than one full time agriculture worker per square mile. Adding in farmers, spouses and managers plus retired and unemployed at the rates prevalent in this area you get up to three per square mile but not all of them will be eligible according to the LPA definition. If the locality could be considered to cover a circle 10 miles across this contains 78 square miles. I think it would be reasonable to assume something in the order of 250 eligible occupants under an AOC.

The actual condition is much wider. I have found a very useful case Sevenoaks District Council v First Secretary of State [2004] PLSCS 69 where it was confirmed that the words of a condition must be given their plain and ordinary meaning and that no extraneous words are to be implied.

There are for example 3.6m people working in the UK agrifood sector alone. If we take 2.5m as a conservative estimate, having removed fishermen etc, we have a ratio of one AOC occupant to 10,000 potential occupants from the UK agrifood sector alone,

A conservative ratio of 1:10,000 means that 0.01% of the eligible occupants will be ‘working in agriculture’ and this is before we get into other parts of the agricultural supply train already agreed to by the LPA, and of a large percentage of the 500m people in the EU. The total number of potential occupants could run into tens of millions.

If you bought a sandwich containing 99.99% chicken and 0.01% ham you wouldn’t call it a ham sandwich!

It is on this basis that, taken as a whole, I do not believe the condition should be treated as an AOC.

If it’s not an AOC then I question whether the LPA can rely on their policies for retaining or removing AOC’s.

The imposition of a new condition would have to meet Test 6 and be ‘reasonable’ Would it be reasonable to impose an AOC retrospectively, substantially devaluing the house and with the great uncertainty of having no mechanism to trigger it? To this extent it would surely fail also on enforceability? I don’t comply with an AOC although I do comply with the current condition. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

I would be most interested to hear you further thoughts.

Jonathan

planning_officer

I'll reply in more detail tomorrow, but that's the standard wording of an old-style agricultural occupancy condition, so you're flogging a dead horse by trying to show it's not. I don't agree that it would allow other workers to live there, unless of course they have a very close tie with agriculture (and it would need to be very close!). As a result, the Local Plan policy relating to removal of AOCs is relevant in this case.

agtag

I totally agree with 'planning officer'. This IS an agricultural occupancy condition in relatively standard form for the time in which it was imposed. The terminology is capable of interpretation and some has been discussed in Case Law.

If you wish to remove this aoc, I still consider that you need to closely follow local policy on aoc removals, Circular 11/95 and PPS 7 and consider both the condition as written AND the current model condition in order to avoid its imposition which, in my view, remains a course of action open to the Council.

I am interested to know how long you have occupied the dwelling and precisely how you have been employed for the last ten years (apologies if this is already set out above). I mention this because I am not convinced that the Planning Departments advice is necessarily wholly accurate and in line with Fawcett Case Law thus you may not be complying with the existing aoc...

AgTag

Jonnylandagent

Thanks for this.

I am basically a land agent having trained in farm management and separately in estate management, and also as an agricultural valuer. I have been working in estate management since moving to the house just over five years ago. I now commute to London and work for an agricultural investment fund, buying farms in eastern Europe.

The house was previously rented out and I don't know if the last tenant complied with the condition, but the house was empty for some months before we moved in so there has been a break in any unauthorised occupancy anyway.

I am going to see if I can make progress with the LPA. The advice I have received form this site will be very helpful and I am most grateful.

Regards,

Jonathan

planning_officer

Jonnylandagent wrote: »

I have been working in estate management since moving to the house just over five years ago. I now commute to London and work for an agricultural investment fund, buying farms in eastern Europe.

To be honest, I think your LPA are being very generous if they say you qualify to live in this dwelling, as my LPA wouldn't be that lenient! Whilst your company is obviously involved in an field related to agriculture, you are not employed in agriculture. I actually think if you live there for another five years you could then claim that you haven;t complied with the condition for 10 years and submit a Lawful Development Certificate for an existing use in breach of a condition - if successful, the property would then be free of the ag tie.

daisyman

Hi all.First of all let me say that I didn't realise the amount of people that used this site and secondly the depth of knowlege.I am currently looking at a property with a section 106 attachment as well as pp for a single dwelling.There is a static dwelling on site at the moment as well as agricultural buildings.If I wanted to have an orchard planted/plant one myself would this comply with the need to be agriculturally employed.

planning_officer

I presume it is the new dwelling that is subject of the PP that has a agricultural occupancy condition attached to the PP and also a S.106 legal agreement to the same effect?

Yes you could plant an orchard, but the key test is whether you are primarily employed in agriculture - I'm no farmer, but I wouldn't imagine looking after an orchard is a full time job, so you wouldn't be able to work elsewhere or have another job. Your main employment must be in agriculture.

MobileSaver

planning_officer wrote: »

Whilst your company is obviously involved in an field related to agriculture, you are not employed in agriculture. I actually think if you live there for another five years you could then claim that you haven;t complied with the condition for 10 years

Having looked at similar properties to the OP I've often wondered exactly what powers do the LPA have if you are in breach of an AOC? Knock it down? Evict you? Fine you?

lincroft1710

I think you could be forced to sell the property if you are in breach of an AOC.