Agricultural tie property

Davesnave

babyblade41 wrote: »

It seems to be harder to remove At on smaller acreage..

I think it's much more to do with the policies and prejudices of the individual district councils.

For example, my relatives live in an area where the council keeps better tabs on things than they do here and property prices are higher too. Despite that, several ag-tied properties in the village have had ties successfully challenged as redundant and removed.

Here, they'd shoot their own grandmother before removing a tie, but never monitor anything, so we have the ridiculous situation of two disabled people renting a tied bungalow near me for the past 11 years. Their landlord could apply any time for a CLEUD, based on their long term breach, but she hasn't bothered yet, as the DWP money rolls in and the council have upgraded the bathroom, access etc for her. The land that went with that one was sold off years ago.

The whole system needs reform. Instead of being places that might give young people a leg up into farming, their pathetic earning potential and non-mortgageability means it's only folk who can pay cash that generally secure them.

Bambam_sdr

Do you think the following would satisfy the condition:

1. Rent fields to a farmer - can be used for crops or grazing
2. Farmer Employs us in some capacity

That means that we would be employed by the business that is working the land - or have i over - simplified there?

Mojisola

Bambam_sdr wrote: »

Do you think the following would satisfy the condition:

1. Rent fields to a farmer - can be used for crops or grazing
2. Farmer Employs us in some capacity

That means that we would be employed by the business that is working the land - or have i over - simplified there?

When we sold our holding, the buyer had to be currently employed in agriculture and able to show that he could make a living off the land he was buying.

babyblade41

Bambam_sdr wrote: »

Do you think the following would satisfy the condition:

1. Rent fields to a farmer - can be used for crops or grazing
2. Farmer Employs us in some capacity

That means that we would be employed by the business that is working the land - or have i over - simplified there?

Renting fields to a farmer doesn't pay very much and they have voids .. I suppose it depends where you are.

Why would the farmer employ you , he certainly wouldn't need you to look after his fields as apart from maintaining fences which is minimal, I'm not sure what else you would be employed for

Davesnave

It's not down to what I think. As I hoped to have indicated by now, these ties are policed and managed in different ways via District Councils, but at a neighbourhood level, it's probably the parish council and 'ordinary folk' who keep a weather eye out for breaches.

So, for example, if you bought a tied property at a discount and then went off to your respective jobs in mechanical engineering and teaching each day, but let out the fields to a third party for sheep and hay, it might not be too long before someone reported you, especially if the farmer using your fields had upset their grandma 20 years ago! This is the countryside, so nothing is secret and relationships are everything.

That's why I recommended speaking to the council, which you're doing, and also to an established local solicitor, who should know how strict enforcement is.

My own view is that agricultural Iand is precious and needs both care and use, so I'd be considering the husbandry and not poking my nose in if that seemed to be OK.

Bambam_sdr

babyblade41 wrote: »

Renting fields to a farmer doesn't pay very much and they have voids .. I suppose it depends where you are.

Why would the farmer employ you , he certainly wouldn't need you to look after his fields as apart from maintaining fences which is minimal, I'm not sure what else you would be employed for

This would be to satisfy the Section 106 agreement as mention in the OP

Bambam_sdr wrote: »

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 Land" Is defined as the plot that is currently for sale (16 acres of pasture/arable)

So would being employed by the farmer that worked the land qualify?

The idea being the farmer gets an extra few acres to work, and we satisfy the Tie to get our dream house

babyblade41

When my in-laws farmed their land (potatoes and apples)

It was very hard to make ends meet especially with the upkeep of the storage sheds and maintenance of machinery

We are in rural SE Oxfordshire and here, and on the specific tie my in-laws had it had to be a working operation and main source of business ..incredibly hard work , long hours for very little money

He bought the land on the condition he works it but as time went on and he got older he was no longer able to do the work. For the discount on buying such a property very few would possibly do it again.

My old house didn't have a tie but the previous owner was trying to make ends meet with animals etc.. he had to give up in the end, he shut the field gates and let it over grow

If your business is not enough then you have to think or a re sale ..just remember many lenders won't lend where they are in place, again as the re-sale value and lack of desirability for these type of properties is low.

Hobby farming won't cut it as so many others would do the same.. your council will tell you what you need to know in more depth as it can vary depending on where you are and what particular tye you have

babyblade41

Bambam_sdr wrote: »

This would be to satisfy the Section 106 agreement as mention in the OP



So would being employed by the farmer that worked the land qualify?

The idea being the farmer gets an extra few acres to work, and we satisfy the Tie to get our dream house

I doubt being employed by a neighbouring farmer will qualify you and eventually you will be found out.
If it's anything where I live the country folk get very protective over agricultural land and they will know exactly what will qualify.

The parish council can be brutal
I hope you are going into this with eyes wide open.
The dream can very quickly turn into a nightmare , the cost of maintenance and all those petrol tools.

The battery powered trimmer won't cope with the never ending heavy duty bramble and hedgerow strimming needs on a small holding

It's hard work especially when it's winter

I'm not sure a farmer would want a few extra acres . The last farmer I knew he used to rent out some of his fields for hobbyist sheep keepers at a peppercorn rent ... it was extra land he didn't need and he didn't need to look after it .

Davesnave

Bambam_sdr wrote: »

So would being employed by the farmer that worked the land qualify?

The idea being the farmer gets an extra few acres to work, and we satisfy the Tie to get our dream house

The contradiction here is that you want to claim 'employment' by the farmer, but then state the farmer will be doing the work! The farmer won't be 'employing 'you in this scenario, or paying you wages, NI contributions etc, they'll just be renting your land.


The tie speaks of an agricultural business, which implies some of the things that businesses do, like buying, selling or providing services. It doesn't say the business has to be highly profitable, but there will be an expectation of reasonable work input by at least one of you and some record keeping for transactions.

Bambam_sdr

Davesnave wrote: »

The contradiction here is that you want to claim 'employment' by the farmer, but then state the farmer will be doing the work! The farmer won't be 'employing 'you in this scenario, or paying you wages, NI contributions etc, they'll just be renting your land.

My thought here was that "The business" would be working "The land" (most likely the business already owned by the farmer), we would be Employed in some capacity by that business (in some capacity like marketing, accounting or whatever).

Davesnave wrote: »

The tie speaks of an agricultural business, which implies some of the things that businesses do, like buying, selling or providing services. It doesn't say the business has to be highly profitable, but there will be an expectation of reasonable work input by at least one of you and some record keeping for transactions.

Nowhere does it state that we have to own the business - only be employed by the business that works the land - so the thought was that the land gets worked properly, we get employed in some capacity, which satisfies the agreement in the sense that we would be employed by the entity that is working the land, and the land is being worked by an agricultural business?