Agricultural tie on property

Davesnave

Itismehonest wrote: »

Some aren't, though, Dave.
http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/warning_to_others_as_couple_receive_hefty_fine_1_1426146

Take good legal advice, folks. It can obviously be very costly to go against the planning.

Itsme, those people were developing a site illegally, not simply living in a house that's already there. I think there's a fundamental difference between them and someone inadvertently occupying an ag tied house, which is where we were when I made the comment you quoted. I was not advocating wholesale disregard of the law.

Coincidentally, I was chatting with a rural solicitor yesterday about non-compliance with ag-ties. She confirmed my suspicion that local authorities in her region are none too keen to find out about breaches. According to her, they would simply be overwhelmed if they took on every non-complier, because the numbers are so large.

Itismehonest

Davesnave wrote: »

Itsme, those people were developing a site illegally, not simply living in a house that's already there. I think there's a fundamental difference between them and someone inadvertently occupying an ag tied house, which is where we were when I made the comment you quoted. I was not advocating wholesale disregard of the law.

Coincidentally, I was chatting with a rural solicitor yesterday about non-compliance with ag-ties. She confirmed my suspicion that local authorities in her region are none too keen to find out about breaches. According to her, they would simply be overwhelmed if they took on every non-complier, because the numbers are so large.

I wasn't referring to the actual circumstances of anyone's case, Dave. Sorry, if it came across that way.
I was meaning that some councils don't have a lacksadaisical attitude & very much keep on top of planning things.
Basically, I was urging caution.

We both live in the country & know that there's usually at least one person, often more, who are fully aware of the various covenants & ties on properties. Often they will hold their counsel & say nothing but, given reason, they will soon be on the phone reporting someone for a breach. I keep out of other people's planning battles (had enough of my own ) but I know several people who have fallen out with neighbours & had a quiet word with the powers that be to report another person's breach.
So, I was just saying be careful to anyone thinking of breaking a tie.

GDB2222

Davesnave wrote: »

Itsme, those people were developing a site illegally, not simply living in a house that's already there. I think there's a fundamental difference between them and someone inadvertently occupying an ag tied house, which is where we were when I made the comment you quoted. I was not advocating wholesale disregard of the law.

I'm surprised that your small holding was not enough to qualify as agricultural work. It was agricultural, it was work, and you spent substantially more than normal full-time hours on it. What have I missed?

Davesnave

GDB2222 wrote: »

I'm surprised that your small holding was not enough to qualify as agricultural work. It was agricultural, it was work, and you spent substantially more than normal full-time hours on it. What have I missed?

Sorry, I must be in 'confusion mode' today!:o

I was not referring to myself, but to beefster. I am not, and never have been in breach of a tie. I was advised by my solicitor not to comply when I took this place on, as the previous occupant had not complied. However, I was, and remain, 100% legal! :A

GDB2222

Davesnave wrote: »

Sorry, I must be in 'confusion mode' today!:o

I was not referring to myself, but to beefster. I am not, and never have been in breach of a tie. I was advised by my solicitor not to comply when I took this place on, as the previous occupant had not complied. However, I was, and remain, 100% legal! :A

Your solicitor was giving you advice to use the 10 year rule so as to break the tie? Financially, that is a great idea.

Davesnave

GDB2222 wrote: »

Your solicitor was giving you advice to use the 10 year rule so as to break the tie? Financially, that is a great idea.

Yes, with a twinkle in his eye, because he didn't know all the facts at that stage.

Davesnave

Itismehonest wrote: »

I was meaning that some councils don't have a lacksadaisical attitude & very much keep on top of planning things.
Basically, I was urging caution.....

So, I was just saying be careful to anyone thinking of breaking a tie.

I know. Enquiring about one property in an area of Dorset, a planning officer once said to me, without knowing my circumstances, "Make damn sure you qualify, or we'll get you out!"

I thought that was a bit harsh, but there was obviously a special kind of zeal there.

planning_officer

This is a bit of a late post to this thread, but on the off-chance that anyone is still reading it...

beefster wrote: »

I am now looking at finding a solicitor to try and get the 10 year - Cert of lawful use applied for however...
1. Differant members of the family have lived there - does it have to be one person continually?
2. There was a period of approx one year where it was not habitable and i was refurbishing it. Does that effect the "continual" aspect.
3. Would the fact that it has not been occupied by anyone working in agriculture, nor has the farm been worked since the late 70's mean we could claim 10 years continual previously?

Answers:
1. No, it can be any number of people - the key thing is that they must ALL have not qualified to live in the property by the agricultural condition.
2. This could be the silver lining... whilst the 10 year period has to be continuos, with no breaks, case law does suggest that even if there was a break, provided that no intervening use has taken place or that there was no intention to occupy the property lawfully, such a break may be acceptable. However, this is a complex area and I can't promise that it applies in this case.
3. No. The 10 year period must be immediately prior to submitting an application.

GDB2222 wrote: »

If I understand the chronology, Grandparents received the building in 1985, did not farm, and lived there until fairly recently. Surely, that's the 10 years dealt with, ie 1985 to 1995?

No - see above re. the 10 year period, which must be immediately prior to submitting an application.

Davesnave wrote: »

I not sure that one may apply for the lifting of a tie based on someone else's non-compliance, but I could be wrong.

Yes you could - but you would need to supply good first hand evidence (statutory declarations, receipts, bills etc) from those people that had occupied the dwelling, otherwise the case would be very weak.

Mojisola wrote: »

Looking through this - www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00470.pdf - it looks as if you should have a strong case.

The property wasn't occupied by an agricultural worker for the whole time your grandparents lived there. Unless the chicken sheds are huge, it doesn't sound as it the amount of land around the house is enough to earn a living from agriculture. You certainly wouldn't get planning permission for a new house on the grounds of an agricultural holding of that size.

To be honest, there's not much info on that link - and every case is different. Also, whether the land around the dwelling is sufficient to farm is largely irrelevant, as most agricultural occupancy conditions just require people to work, or have last worked, in the locality, not actually at that particular farm. If any condition did stipulate that someone must work on a particular farm, that is not in accordance with current practice regarding such conditions and it would be easy to formally apply to the Council to have the working varied to a more standard format - i.e. 'working in the locality'.

Beefster also mentions finding a solicitor to deal with this - I would be more inclined to find a good planning consultant who understands such cases, as not all solicitors do. You should see some of the rubbish we get from solicitors. However, a good solicitor who specialises in this area would be ideal.