How to conform with Agricultural Occupancy Order?

G_M

Mojisola wrote: »

I find it difficult to see how anyone would be able to make most of their living from one acre.

They are not necessarily expected to.


They may, however, be employed as a farm hand on the neighbouring farm, and use the one acre to supplement their income with home-grown veg or to keep a few goats.......

peterhjohnson

Diocletian_II wrote: »

I've seen them advertised for even more than half a million before!

The way it can work is for someone to to start off as an agricultural worker for someone, move on to rent a farm and then buy their own. When they come to retire, they sell the farm and can afford to buy a house with Agricultural Occupancy. Know of someone who's doing that.

Davesnave

It's possible to make a living from an acre or less. My wife and I had a nursery business, based mostly on a 1/4 acre site and we made a modest profit, but like the lady the OP refers to, I had a teaching job to make up the difference to a 'normal' income most of the time.

However, it depends where the acre is and how good the lady would be at selling, because it's no use producing something, if no one buys it, or it doesn't achieve a profitable price. We were fortunate to be in an expensive city, with a similarly wealthy hinterland. Our business was able to grow quickly, away from the markets and car boots where we started, into plant fairs and charity events at large country houses. With higher capital investment, increasing experience and specialisation, much better returns followed. We still had to work very hard, as weekends were when many events happened, but with both of us selling, we could even cover two venues at once.

Producing and selling plants profitably as a sole trader would therefore be very hard indeed, and impossible in some rural places, like where we live now.

When I retired from teaching, we moved to our present property, which is an agriculturally-tied holding. We paid cash. Mortgages, then and now, were out of the question. That's ironic, when the original purpose of many holdings was to give less wealthy people a leg-up into farming.

Many properties with AOCs are redundant, so far as their original purpose is concerned. Ours was sectioned-off because the shape and structure of the land were unsuitable for arable contractors' heavy machinery. The original business set-up, intensive pig farming, is long gone. Amen to that.

We've never complied with our tie in a business sense, and neither have others living in similar property nearby. That doesn't mean the monitoring of ties is as lax everywhere else in the country as it is here; it's entirely down to individual authorities' priorities. In other places, authorities sometimes lift ties when the need is no longer there.

It would be unwise for me to advise how the lady should act in relation to this property, which probably seems attractive because it has a lower price than comparables without AOCs. It may have possibilities unique to its location or she might have expertise that could be developed to help her comply, or appear to.

Or, she could decide to take a chance. We did that and it's worked out OK; not only for us, but for the land and house, both of which were in need of much input. One problem with Ag-tied property has been an historic unwillingness to invest in it, but as more properties have their ties lifted, or are granted Certificates of Lawful Development, that may change.

Davesnave

Mojisola wrote: »

I find it difficult to see how anyone would be able to make most of their living from one acre.

Does your sister have any experience of horticulture/agriculture?

As, at present, she isn't working in agriculture, I don't see how she could fulfil the requirement.

G_M wrote: »

They are not necessarily expected to.

They may, however, be employed as a farm hand on the neighbouring farm, and use the one acre to supplement their income with home-grown veg or to keep a few goats.......

To clarify, the usual wording of the tie refers to "a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed in the locality , in agriculture" and there is no stipulation that it has to be their main source of income, just their main employment.


In other words, it could be argued that if a person spent 48 hours working on the holding and 10 in a more lucrative occupation, they might well be complying.


Of course, keeping 3 sheep, 10 ducks and a pig on an acre wouldn't require 48 hours worth of work a week, so the exact nature of the work is pertinent.

System

peterhjohnson wrote: »

The way it can work is for someone to to start off as an agricultural worker for someone, move on to rent a farm and then buy their own. When they come to retire, they sell the farm and can afford to buy a house with Agricultural Occupancy. Know of someone who's doing that.

The re-sale market will be miniscule. Trying to find a rich farm labourer who can pay you half a million will be like trying to find a needle in the haystack. So when you buy, you are essentially accepting the chances of ever selling on are negligible (unless farm labouring wage inflation puts it on a par with city lawyers in future).

Davesnave

Diocletian_II wrote: »

The re-sale market will be miniscule. Trying to find a rich farm labourer who can pay you half a million will be like trying to find a needle in the haystack. So when you buy, you are essentially accepting the chances of ever selling on are negligible (unless farm labouring wage inflation puts it on a par with city lawyers in future).

The poster referred specifically to older farmers, who may require a property with a manageable amount of land attached to keep a few animals in their retirement. This is very common.

babyblade41

My MIL lives in an AOC property with once 12 acres , 50 years ago they were growing and selling potatoes and apples.

That went in to decline and so did the house

She has got a CLD now as it hasn't been farmed for 30 years but still has an AOC . Without it the house is probably worth about 850k but with it still attached about 550k

An acre wouldn't allow you to profit from anything it's not enough land, I say a large garden .

We had a 3 acre paddock with barns and stables and we didn't want to profit from the land as we just wanted space for rescue animals .. but again still not enough to house animals for food on a profit making scale, we know as the previous owner tried and went bust very quickly

An acre isn't enough for animals , orchards but maybe a small plant nursery (not sure if that comes under AOC)

The problem is if the property went ahead to completion and the criteria didn't come up to scratch , I'd be worried someone would be knocking on my door , parish councillors are extremely nosey.

The reasons that these type of properties are so cheap is because so few fit the criteria hence the attractive price .

I wouldn't entertain one myself

System

Davesnave wrote: »

The poster referred specifically to older farmers, who may require a property with a manageable amount of land attached to keep a few animals in their retirement. This is very common.

Why would rich ex-farmers feel compelled to buy expensive AOC houses, when they have the money to buy normal non-AOC houses with land, but with none of the restrictions of AOC? What benefits do they get from having an agricultural restriction on their house? They would be a lot better using their vast wealth to buy a non-AOC house, so at least they could sell it on to ordinary non-rich-ex-framer buyers, of whom there will be infinitely more.

Davesnave

babyblade41 wrote: »

An acre isn't enough for animals , orchards but maybe a small plant nursery (not sure if that comes under AOC)

I wouldn't entertain one myself

It's important not to muddy the waters, so I will state clearly again that a plant nursery could be able to meet the criteria, just like other enterprises.

I agree an acre is way too small for an animal-based business, or something like willow production, mentioned by the OP. Similarly, grazing someone else's animals doesn't count, regardless of acreage.

If a CLEUD is granted, the agricultural tie stays in place, but is dormant, so anyone with the £££ can then buy such a property. Obviously, the size of the house and attractiveness of the situation governs the sale from there on.

Oddly, if the property is subject to a CLEUD and a buyer complies with the tie (why would you?) it is re-activated. I'd guess this is because they would have proved profitability.

I agree too that many ag-tied properties are not very attractive, especially if they are based around a Woolaway pre-fabricated concrete bungalow, which will by now be suffering the effects of 'concrete cancer.' The OP's SiL (and anyone else) should look out for that.

Davesnave

Diocletian_II wrote: »

Why would rich ex-farmers feel compelled to buy expensive AOC houses, when they have the money to buy normal non-AOC houses with land, but with none of the restrictions of AOC? What benefits do they get from having an agricultural restriction on their house? They would be a lot better using their vast wealth to buy a non-AOC house, so at least they could sell it on to ordinary non-rich-ex-framer buyers, of whom there will be infinitely more.

Usually because they like the property and it's land, especially if it is near the family, who may have taken over the running of the family farm or live nearby. They may have a social network in the area too.

Contrary to popular belief, many farmers are not a homogeneous group and the owners of 'vast wealth,' but they might be able to rustle-up £1/2m or more in cash for the right place.

There are no down-sides at all for retired farmers in owning a property with an AOC, because they will have qualified to hold it until they pass on through their earlier work.