Agricultural tie property

Bambam_sdr

Hi there.

We are curious about a property that has an agricultural tie (section 106) as we're looking for a change of lifestyle.

The details of the agreement seem relatively broad compared to everything else I have seen mentioned, so would love some opinions.

The wording is as follows:

"The dwelling may only be occupied by a person or persons employed in the business, and their immediate family or dependents living together as a single household"

The business is defined as "the agricultural business operating for the time being on the land"

The property has around 16 acres, some of which is paddocks. From what I understand the current owners keep sheep and horses which was enough to satisfy the planning authority, although that is only the word of the EA.

From this what I understand is that there would need to be an agricultural business (not sure how that is defined, but the EA says that having a farm holding number is enough) operating on the 16 acres, and that the occupiers need to be employed by that business.

So to satisfy this, we could set up a small business to work the land (by keeping sheep/horses), and as employees/owners we could then occupy the house.

Is my understanding correct? Or have I missed something?

davidmcn

Seems fair enough - assuming it is actually a business you're running and not just a token pet sheep/horse. Why are you concerned that it might not be sufficient?

pleasedelete

Loads of enforcement around here. They are given certain amount of time to develop a business or sell. They often sell at a loss to comply.

The conditions depend-what does it actually say? Here one of you has to be employed full time in agriculture- so no hobby businesses.

Does one of you not work?

Bambam_sdr

Thanks for the quick reply Davidmcm.

Again, this is all very much second hand information, so I wanted to make sure my understanding was correct.

The is only stabling for 3 horses, all of which would be taken up by our own 4 legged money pits, so not sure they would be classed as part of the business?

That leaves sheep and possibly 1 crop. One of us would still be full time in other jobs, so this would need to be a very simple to run thing we could do to comply.

@pleasedelete - I've copied the agreement verbatim as it appears in the documents I have.

Davesnave

There's a long-running thread on this with plenty to read!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1254937/agricultural-occupancy-condition

The first observation I'd make is that the condition, as quoted, isn't the 'standard' one; it seems open to quite broad interpretation

Secondly, there is no way that the keeping of horses can be construed as agriculture, unless they are being reared for meat.

Another observation I'd make is that EAs often spout BS, and in this case I can't agree that having a holding number equates to running a business. I have a holding number and no business, so the two are not synonymous.

Pleasedelete's comment is interesting, and it would be even more so if they hinted at where 'around here' is, approximately. While it is true that new ties may be tested against the businesses that created them, especially where potential housing is involved, the policing of older AOCs generally has been very hit and miss since the financial squeeze on councils. In my part of Devon, it appears to be 100% miss!

I'm not aware of any evictions for non-compliance in recent years and I'd be very grateful for links to reports of them in the media. Given that the 'reward' for successful non-compliance over a period of 10 years is the granting of a CLEUD, (Certificate of lawful Development) there seems little incentive for meeting the conditions of un-monitored ties these days. Once a CLEUD is in place, the value of the property increases, perhaps by as much as 25%.

That said, it must be remembered that properties with AOCs are not mortgageable at 'normal' rates and most lenders wouldn't touch them at all.

If the OP wants clarity on this particular tie, the only body that can provide that is the local council. Otherwise, if they have the funds, they could maybe take a view, after listening to a local solicitor's advice, and hope for the best.

babyblade41

My in laws lived in an AT house... I think theirs stated the business has to be their main source of income , it was breached many years ago and has a a certificate now for MIL to stay after FIL died

Davesnave

babyblade41 wrote: »

My in laws lived in an AT house... I think theirs stated the business has to be their main source of income , it was breached many years ago and has a a certificate now for MIL to stay after FIL died

The usual interpretation is that it should be the main business of at least one partner, as measured by time spent, rather than income. If that partner dies, provision is in the wording for the widow/widower to retain the right to live in the property.

babyblade41

Davesnave wrote: »

The usual interpretation is that it should be the main business of at least one partner, as measured by time spent, rather than income. If that partner dies, provision is in the wording for the widow/widower to retain the right to live in the property.

Yes I didn't word that too well.. They grew and sold spuds then stopped it.. They had breached the AT for many years

They had to have it as their main business , they didn't have time or energy for anything else.

Sadly it is now in a dilapidated state

Davesnave

babyblade41 wrote: »

Sadly it is now in a dilapidated state

This is true of many ag-tied properties. Buyers are not always willing to invest in them, especially if they are concrete panel bungalows, perhaps with a small acreage too.

Bambam_sdr

Thanks again for your Replies. I'm getting some moreinformation from the council that granted the agreement and will go from there.

babyblade41

Davesnave wrote: »

This is true of many ag-tied properties. Buyers are not always willing to invest in them, especially if they are concrete panel bungalows, perhaps with a small acreage too.

It seems to be harder to remove At on smaller acreage, this only had 12 and FIL sold 6 .. yes it is a bungalow although not sure of construction, he built it himself

Yes sadly MIL still lives in it with original windows, wiring , roof and oil fired boiler ...all well over 50 years old