How to conform with Agricultural Occupancy Order?

peterhjohnson

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.

They don't have vast wealth. They have just enough to buy somewhere with an AOC

System

peterhjohnson wrote: »

They don't have vast wealth. They have just enough to buy somewhere with an AOC

Half a million is a lot of cash, especially if the market when they try to sell it on, is limited to another cash rich farmer. Finding a next cash rich farmer, in the market at that moment, would be like finding a proverbial needle in the haystack.

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-64396407.html

Davesnave

Jeepers_Creepers wrote: »

As I said before, I suspect they were being very specific to this property and wouldn't be so generous to a multi-acre holding.

No one likes to see good agricultural land wasted, but an acre or so is only the size of a large garden.

We farm our land, but even though there are 30 sheep out there at present, there's no money in them for us, or for the hay that's taken. We just get enjoyment from running the smallholding well.

No money changes hands. We may receive gifts of logs for the wood burner, meat for the freezer or assistance with the never-ending repair of stock fencing, but overall we make a small loss on the farming side, because there's always something that needs replacing, like a chain saw or a mower.

Our partner farmer, with 150 acres is rich on paper, but a farm is a very illiquid asset, especially when it's been in the family for generations and there's pressure to keep it that way.

The 'vast wealth' round here generally resides among consortiums of people who don't get their hands dirty, though they may turn out for the occasional corporate shoot.

Jeepers_Creepers

Spoke too soon...



They went to have a look at the house, and it was a lovely home, ideal for their needs. They thought they'd better confirm with the council's planning department what they were told before making an off, and were promptly told that their plans would not conform. So, they were misinformed by the original person.


Hey-ho.

Davesnave

Jeepers_Creepers wrote: »

They thought they'd better confirm with the council's planning department what they were told before making an off, and were promptly told that their plans would not conform. So, they were misinformed by the original person.

I'm sorry to read that.

It happens. There were times when we were told nonsense. A lady in Mendip Council once informed us: "The word agriculture doesn't include horticulture within the context of AOC wording."

Knowing a few nursery people locally with AOC affected properties, we enlightened her

As one might expect, we were also given many interpretations of the phrase "in the locality."

The legislation's a dog's breakfast now. It needs a serious dose of revision/clarification to ensure that people are treated equally across different local authorities.

Jeepers_Creepers

Thanks Dave.


Yes, it does look like one of those ideas which had a honourable intended purpose, but which has long since fallen in to some confusion as the 'industry' has changed so much.


Call me cynical, but I quite anticipate the house being bought by someone with a multi-£k salary who drives a big 4X4 (only on roads...) and who has only the most tenuous links to the agri business. (The estate agent did tell us that one of the other interested parties was intending to have his job description amended for the purposes of making an offer. Ie, although his work is related to 'agriculture' - he's an engineer - his job description doesn't currently conform to the requirements of the Act).

Davesnave

Jeepers_Creepers wrote: »

The estate agent did tell us that one of the other interested parties was intending to have his job description amended for the purposes of making an offer. Ie, although his work is related to 'agriculture' - he's an engineer - his job description doesn't currently conform to the requirements of the Act).

Yes, a person who mends tractors wouldn't be any more engaged in agriculture than an electrician who installs and fixes panels on solar farm arrays.

The persons in planning usually toe the official line and parrot what it says, so making enquiries there is often unrewarding. Your SiL maybe met a maverick or someone blagging their way through in their first enquiry.

I expect whoever buys this property will be like us: pay cash and just take a chance on no one checking-up. To be blunt, at the time we purchased, we'd been on a very long search, thwarted at every turn and we knew how difficult it was to find somewhere with the right combination of land and property features. We decided that if we were subsequently asked to sell-up by the local authority, we'd give them the run-around for as long as possible, as it was only supposed to be a stepping-stone property anyway.

However, plans change and we decided to stay.

Jeepers_Creepers

Cool - may it last :-)

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Is there any mileage in combining the part time teaching with use of the acre for horticultural therapy? Sensory garden, wildlife pond, educational activities for schoolkids etc?

lincroft1710

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Is there any mileage in combining the part time teaching with use of the acre for horticultural therapy? Sensory garden, wildlife pond, educational activities for schoolkids etc?

I doubt this would meet the requirements of an agricultural occupancy.