Agricultural tie property

Davesnave

Bambam_sdr wrote: »

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).

Marketing and accounting are not agriculture, unless you are doing them in the context of your own business.

If someone's job is marketing yogurt made by a third person or accountancy for the local NFU office, that wouldn't enable them to satisfy the conditions of an AOC. With the sort of acreage involved, inventing a hobby job would be no better than hobby farming.

You are really faced with a choice of trying to comply with the tie, or saying "OK I'll take a calculated risk on non-compliance and see how it goes."

You either gather the info about the tie itself and the situation in your local area and make that choice, or you walk away.

Bambam_sdr

Hi Dave,

Am awaiting an email from the LA regarding the actual 106 agreement.

All it states is that the occupiers have to be employed by the business working the land - and that the business has to be an agricultural business. It doesn't states that the occupiers have to be employed in agriculture.

does that make sense

babyblade41

I'm probably going to get another yellow card or straight red again but ...

You have asked advice on a subject which is subject to different interpretations depending on your locality

Most who have offered an explanation have pretty much said the same thing , the restriction is pretty straight forward in as much you will have to run an agricultural business and this must be the main business..no third party as in renting to farmer or farmer employing you , although I'd doubt a farmer would want another employee

Different councils and probably best starting with the parish council will have different views . What I'm sensing is that for every post possibly not agreeing with your interpretation you have offered an alternative

It really is a case of doing due diligence and sensing from the local councils what their view on it is , but they may say one thing and yet if you go ahead and find A it's not viable or B, the council don't agree with your interpretation then where are you ??

If you really have no plans to farm 100 percent and by that I mean not just keeping a few sheep to keep the grass down then the risk is not worth it.

You haven't stated where you are from ie, are you city based looking for an alternative lifestyle or if this dream house is in an area you know well .

I've always lived in very rural communities and it can be isolating , you either fit in or you don't and if you don't you tend to know pretty quickly

What happens if it goes Pete Tong ? , it's a big risk and trying to get the AT off is no easy thing to do , it's not guaranteed and can be expensive , all the while you're investment and dream home has become a mill stone

Bambam_sdr

I totally understand this is open to interpretation on the council side and am already talking to them about this as well - as i have stated i'm waiting to hear back from them.

The reason i'm pushing back on people's responses is that i have read many 106 agreements while researching this, and the details of the one relating to this particular house seem very vague compared to others that dictate things like the majority income, the industry and so on.

Both of us grew up in the country and around farms, and currently we are somewhere in the middle. We have friends in the same area that moved there a while ago and we are looking to make the same kind of lifestyle change - they went for a property without a tie but in the same sort of vein.

We are not really considering trying to remove the AT at this point, just looking at ways that at least one of us could have a "proper" job, while we make the transition to s smallholding as simple as possible.

babyblade41

Have you seen the deeds or are you just going on what the EA is saying.. the current owner may have a certificate so the AT is not breached by the current owner or widow/widower, great you are looking at these type of priorities as so few take them on.

What you have to weigh up is the risk .. as there is no easy answer. I wouldn't entertain one even as they are usually quite discounted ,, and having rescue farm animals land is always a must have

Even my in-laws house won't tempt me as it is in a lovely location with originally 12 acres but now only 6 .. I always need an option to move if circumstances change

It would be interesting to see how you progress.. I hope my negativity won't stop you pursuing further

Bambam_sdr

In all honesty we probably need some negativity to stop us from just going for it, but in reality it will depend on the wording of the actual 106 which i should receive at some point this week.

Once we see some more detail we'll be able to work it all out.

babyblade41

well good luck and you really do need to go in eyes wide open.. these can be hard properties to sell and EA is working for the vendor

Tread carefully and take advice from your solicitor

Bambam_sdr

So as a quick addendum to this, we have now seen the FULL section 106 agreement and it is essentially identical to what we already had, barring one crucial part.

A part b) to one of the other clauses States very clearly that the house cannot be sold separately to the business. They cannot be sold independently.

So we've asked the question to the EA and await his response!!!