Agricultural ties

taggarc

I am considering buying a property in an area where I do not live that has an agricultural tie attached to the property.

The clause states that "The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in the locality in agricluture as defined by section 290 of the town and country planning act 1971, or in forestry (or is a dependent of such a person residing with him or her) , or widow or widower of such a person"

Would I comply with this if I moved in and

A) My partner farmed the land (20 acres+)

We both farmed the land (at the momement I have a job that would make more than that generated by the farm, hence the option above as I am more than a few years from retiring!)

C) It wouldn't make a difference who farmed it as we are not local.

The area in question is controlled by the Peak National Park.

Any advice greatly appreciated

Running_Horse

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/search.php?searchid=81823333

taggarc

Sorry the above thread doesn't appear to link anywhere.

Thanks

Taggarc

moggylover

taggarc wrote: »

I am considering buying a property in an area where I do not live that has an agricultural tie attached to the property.

The clause states that "The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed or last employed in the locality in agricluture as defined by section 290 of the town and country planning act 1971, or in forestry (or is a dependent of such a person residing with him or her) , or widow or widower of such a person"

Would I comply with this if I moved in and

A) My partner farmed the land (20 acres+)

We both farmed the land (at the momement I have a job that would make more than that generated by the farm, hence the option above as I am more than a few years from retiring!)

C) It wouldn't make a difference who farmed it as we are not local.

The area in question is controlled by the Peak National Park.

Any advice greatly appreciated

As long as one of you (who is on the deeds) actually uses the land for agriculture (and this does not include horses, they are not agricultural) then you fullfill the criteria I believe.

I don't believe it would be enough if your partner was not a joint owner of the property as the idea is that these places stay in the "ownership" of those involved in agriculture and forestry where wages are not known for being wonderful, hence the discount.

Just renting the land out would not, since you do not come from an agricultural or forestry background.

Richard_Webster

solely or mainly employed

So the person who runs the farm cannot do it as a hobby and have another job which is his/her main source of income.

A 20 acre holding is unlikely to be viable as a main source of income these days.

You may find that it is on the market merely in order to demonstrate to the Council that nobody wants to buy it with the ag-tie so that it can be lifted!

moggylover

Richard_Webster wrote: »

So the person who runs the farm cannot do it as a hobby and have another job which is his/her main source of income.

A 20 acre holding is unlikely to be viable as a main source of income these days.

You may find that it is on the market merely in order to demonstrate to the Council that nobody wants to buy it with the ag-tie so that it can be lifted!

Was supposed to be used to make these properties remain affordable for those employed in agri/forestry and who were local so idea is not for it to be a "hobby farm/holding".

Does not have to be the main source of income for a couple;)

Your last paragraph is probably right, but it really demonstrates only that those that want to buy it (and use it according to the ag tie) are probably unable to afford it because of the pressure put upon prices of such properties by incomers with more money than sense:D

taggarc

moggylover wrote: »

Was supposed to be used to make these properties remain affordable for those employed in agri/forestry and who were local so idea is not for it to be a "hobby farm/holding".

Does not have to be the main source of income for a couple;)

Your last paragraph is probably right, but it really demonstrates only that those that want to buy it (and use it according to the ag tie) are probably unable to afford it because of the pressure put upon prices of such properties by incomers with more money than sense:D

Richard and Moggylover I am sure you are right - i.e. that locality dosn't matter providing one of you intend to and actually work the land and that is her or his main job (not the main source of joint income). However, I am sure when I speak to the local planning officer tomorrow I am going to hear different.

I seen in another thread that 'Planning Officer" mentioned the following case re the partner income and the amount of time scenario

Wood v. S.O.S. 17/3/94 (Great Yarmouth Borough Council) DCS No. 051570387. Sorry cannot include the link as I do not have enough posts.

Does this case still stand, (I can't find it on the web) i.e. not been contradicted by a more recent case in the high court and is there another case which supports the intention of moving to an area and actually farming the tie, as oppossed to being previously employed in agriculture and living in the local area?

Just trying to prepare my argument in advance, but I am sure that a planning officer is unlikely to change their mind or their area's policy regardless of what I say!

If this is the case what do you do? Hear what they say and if they cannot contradict what you are saying with rational argument proceed as planned and wait to see what happens later or do something else?

Moreover, what is the worse they could do and is there any evidence of any local planning depts actually doing this in such a case, i.e. where someone who is not local or employed in agriculture has actually bought the land and one of them has farmed it?

Any advice much appreciated.

Taggarc

PS the property is being auctioned by the beneficaries of an estate so I do not think it is a ruse to get the agricultural restriction condition removed

Richard_Webster

I don't think the fact that you are moving into the area is relevant. If you farm the holding then you are employed in agriculture in the locality. However if you lived there at weekends and actually were employed in agriculture on a farm 100 miles away then that wouldn't count.

I think you have to distinguish between two different factual situations which could comply with the ag-tie:

1. The occupier is actually farming the holding; and
2. The occupier isn't farming the holding but works for another local farmer on a nearby holding. It is usually highly unrealistic to expect a 20 acre holding to be occupied by someone in category 2 - but I suppose he could rent it - if he could afford the rent. Normally he would live in a small house on or near the farm he worked on.

Planning_Officer will be able to tell us this but it strikes me that if one of you is solely or mainly employed in agriculture, i.e. that person doesn't have another job that could be sufficient. The only weakness is then that if the other one was actually doing a non-agricultural job and bringing in the major part of the income for both of you then it could be argued he/she was not a "dependent"...

You also have to remember that the wording will vary from condition to condition and these conditions are always interpreted against those seeking to uphold them if there is any ambiguity.

taggarc

Richard here is the text that relates to the above case I mentioned, which was from an earlier post by PLanning Officer and directly relates to the points you bring up, hence my earlier questions

"Yes, it's Wood v. S.O.S. 17/3/94 (Great Yarmouth Borough Council) DCS No. 051570387. Here an Inspector found that the proportion of the household income derived from the wife's agricultural work was only 16% and she earned less than half of what her husband earned, who worked in non-agricultural employment. The wife worked 25 hrs per week in agriculture, amounting to some 60% of her working week and about 52% of the normal working week of a farm worker. It was concluded that the wife was 'mainly employed' in agriculture and her husband was her dependent in that he depended on her to maintain their standard of living (i.e. stay in the ag-tied dwelling).

An Inspector originally came to the opposite conclusion in this case, and when it was referred to the Court, the Court said that the Inspector had not considered it correctly - when it was reconsidered, the Inspector came to the conclusion above"

Taggarc

Richard_Webster

That case seems to fit your situation. I am not sure that it is necessarily wise to contact the Council about the matter before proceeding.

Once you move in they are only going to start asking questions if they see signs that the holding is not being farmed. Whilst they are vigilant there is a limit to what Planning Enforcement officers can do. I would think it unlikely (Planning_Officer correct me) that they would go round asking lots of questions simply for the fun of it. They would only do so if they either:

a. saw evidence of non-agricultural use or lack of any agricultural use; or
b. were tipped off by a neighbour (keep in with your neighbours - do not do anything to wind them up!)

If they do ask then you put forward the defence that one of you is "solely or mainly employed in agriculture..." and quote the case mentioned.

The sellers may not be too keen on selling to you because they perhaps are hoping that they can wait out their 1-2 year period and demonstrate nobody was interested! They would then hope to get the ag-tie lifted and sell for more thereafter!

You need to consider the funding of the purchase. An ordinary residential mortgage is going to be very very difficult to get on the property, if not impossible. If you do not have the cash then you may not be able to buy it. have you checked that aspect?

taggarc

Richard thanks once again.

The property is going through an auction and is someones estate being sold off so I think it is not a ploy to get the tie removed. I think the previous owner who is now deceased tried that in the past though and failed.

Re the finance I will have to borrow 25% of the my target price but as I have a property that is worth 3 times what I need to borrow and is debt free I don't envisage this being a problem.

I have fireinds in the industry so should be able to push the re mortgage through in double quick time.

If push comes to shove and everything went wrong re the % of income coming from the holding (household not the person working it) then I might also be prepared to rent it to someone who could fulfill the conditions of the tie until I no longer needed to work elsewhere myself.

But in the end (when money is less of an issue) I also want to work the holding with my spouse. I really want to see the holding worked as it should be and have no desire to see the tie removed.

Taggarc