How to conform with Agricultural Occupancy Order?

Slithery

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?

How would any of that be classified as agricultural?

Davesnave

Slithery wrote: »

How would any of that be classified as agricultural?

Managing land for wildlife is something that may well attract grants or special payments, if it's carried out by a full-time farmer with a good acreage, so it's an agricultural activity in some contexts.

However, on an acre, it's probably a non-starter, however good the idea behind it. Creating facilities for school visits doesn't come cheaply and many schools now have their own shade areas, sensory gardens and ponds etc. It's particularly difficult if the property is distant from centres of population too.

Jeepers_Creepers

Thanks again. everyone.


She was upfront with the council with her intentions, and said that whilst she would be unlikely to make a significant income from a single acre, she still wished to fulfil the spirit of the Act and use the land productively and to sell produce from it locally. There's also the potential for growing Willow, tho' I don't know how financially viable that would be.


Interesting developments, tho'... The estate agent initially told us that anyone could actually buy the property, tho' not necessarily be allowed to live in it, which I understand is the case. We have now been told that the seller owns the surrounding land to this property as well, and has been building houses on it; his desire is to not actually sell this house, but for it to not sell so he can then argue for having the tie lifted - ergo turning it all in to a further development plot.


I'm not suggesting that the estate agent is in his back pocket on this - perish - but when sis called them up and made an offer for the full asking price, their new reply was "Er...um...uh - You'll need a letter from the council to say you are entitled, conform to the Agri Act."


Hmm, big rat smelled.

Davesnave

If lifting an AOC is to be considered, it's usually the case that the property must first be placed on the open market at a fair price for a set period, usually not less than a year and typically 18months. If it remains unsold, then a local need for it's existence can be questioned.

This still doesn't mean that the parish council will approve removal of a tie. Ours never does, but the final decision rests with the local authority, who may be more realistic.

Of course, there are individual interpretations of what a 'fair' price is, and various methods might be used to dissuade potential purchasers. We've been on the wrong end of them twice, so we know the situation can be both funny and frustrating; funny because most people are bad liars, and frustrating because once you realise it's a pantomime, it's probably 'game over.' We didn't follow-though with the two fake sales we uncovered.

The only other option is a Certificate of Lawful Development, which can follow 10 years of non-compliance. On the advice of our solicitor, we've never complied. Our 'official' income is pension-derived. It's a very odd system which actually rewards people who can get away with breaking the law for long enough!

From what you've said, I think the agent is prevaricating, as it's none of his business whether your SiL could conform with the requirements of the AOC or not. That said, agents receive a lot of misplaced interest in these properties, which eventually goes nowhere, so many see making demands like that as a way of weeding out the serious buyers.

Jeepers_Creepers

The insistence on the letter from the council to say we 'complied' apparently came from the vendor and was relayed to us by the EA, and it's quite possible that the vendor was looking for confirmation that we are 'serious' too. But... we have been told by someone who should know that he doesn't really want to sell, but to have the tie removed.


Can't really blame the guy, but the shenanigans one has to work through to get to the truth is pretty depressing. The whole system is pretty much bound to be subject to abuse.


In any case, the vendor is incorrect to insist on this confirmation, and the EA wrong to relay it to us as if it were reasonable. What this has done, is to acknowledge that the vendor has now received a genuine offer at the asking price - that won't help his case with the LA when he pursues a request for removing the tie.

Mojisola

Jeepers_Creepers wrote: »

Interesting developments, tho'... The estate agent initially told us that anyone could actually buy the property, tho' not necessarily be allowed to live in it, which I understand is the case. We have now been told that the seller owns the surrounding land to this property as well, and has been building houses on it; his desire is to not actually sell this house, but for it to not sell so he can then argue for having the tie lifted - ergo turning it all in to a further development plot.

This has happened to the holding we used to own - despite letters to the council from three different people saying that they fitted the conditions and had been trying to buy the nursery, the council lifted the AOC on the basis that it had been on the market without any offers.

It does lead to thoughts of whether underhand stuff is going on.

Jeepers_Creepers

Blimey, that seems pretty blatant!



'Underhand' stuff in this case might just be the EA acting in their own ultimate best interests; they don't want to cheese off the vendor so will do as he says, and are also probably looking forward to a few more future sales when he - as they assume - develops the land (and they are probably also going to be acting for him on his current builds). So the EA happily passes on the vendor's insistence of this letter from the council.



And the vendor himself is just doing what most folk in his position would do.



Any Act with a potential loophole will be exploited - I think that's a truism.