Occupancy Restriction - what does it mean?

MattyJ80

Hello All
I'm after some help translating legalese!
I am interested in buying a property however there is a restriction on it as per below.
N.B. - CONDITION:
The condition is that the person to whom the disposal is made (or, if it is made to more than one person, at least one of them) has, throughout the period of three years immediately preceding the application for consent, either—
(a) had his place of work in a designated region which or part of which is comprised in the National Park or area; or
(b) had his only or principal home in such a region ;
or has had the one in part or parts of that period and the other in the remainder; but the region need not have been the same throughout the whole of the period
I have lived in the area for just over a year so I am wondering if I qualify under section B, as my current rented property has been my main residence since June last year.
Can anyone help?
Thanks

davidmcn

MattyJ80 said:

The condition is that the person to whom the disposal is made (or, if it is made to more than one person, at least one of them) has, throughout the period of three years immediately preceding the application for consent, either—
(a) had his place of work in a designated region which or part of which is comprised in the National Park or area; or
(b) had his only or principal home in such a region ;
or has had the one in part or parts of that period and the other in the remainder; but the region need not have been the same throughout the whole of the period
I have lived in the area for just over a year so I am wondering if I qualify under section B, as my current rented property has been my main residence since June last year.

Have you had your place of work in the area for the remainder of the past three years? If not then no, you won't qualify - it says you need to have worked and/or lived in the area for at least three years.

AdrianC

If you think you can argue that "since June last year" would qualify for "throughout the period of three years immediately preceding", then fill your boots.

I've always thought one was a lot less than three, but - hey - I failed my A-level Maths.

The "or" at the end would cover somebody who had worked within a "designated region" and lived within for the entire three years, but may have worked for a year while living outside, then lived inside but worked outside for the other two. In other words, "lived or worked" for the whole three years, but not "lived" or "worked" continuously.

MattyJ80

Thanks for your quick response.
Looks like I need to keep house hunting then - unless I can get the restriction removed, the house has been on the market for some time so I'm assuming there's no real demand from buyers who have been 'local' longer than me! 

AdrianC

You can certainly request from the local authority that it be removed...

But just because it's overpriced for the target market doesn't mean there's no demand.

Sachs

If the seller can evidence that they have marketed the property at an appropriate price for an appropriate period of time then there is the tiniest possibility the LPA will allow the restriction to be released but I wouldn't bank on it. The whole point of the restriction is to ensure that working age people can find affordable homes in these areas so the villages don't all die due to the only residents being retirees, second home owners and holiday cottages.

princeofpounds

Sachs said:

The whole point of the restriction is to ensure that working age people can find affordable homes in these areas so the villages don't all die due to the only residents being retirees, second home owners and holiday cottages.

Wouldn't be necessary if they allowed working age people to buy land on the edge of villages and actually build something themselves; that would be something affordable to nearly anyone with a full time job. This sentence reminded me why I hate planning policy in this country so much.

Sachs

I agree, the tyranny of the homeowner is pretty bad in this country. I wish the greenbelt concept would just die but we are where we are.

eidand

Sachs said:

I agree, the tyranny of the homeowner is pretty bad in this country. I wish the greenbelt concept would just die but we are where we are.

I guess it depends how you look at it.

I don't have a problem with the "greenbelt" concept, I very much want that to remain in place. Not everyone wants roads and cement everywhere, with no green in sight.

What I would like to see is more options to buy land and self build on it. Somehow, the big builders are allowed to buy huge amounts of land, build and charge gazillions for it.

Each council has a register for people who want to self build however that amounts to nothing in practice. I've been on that register, where I live, for years and not once was I offered a chance to buy anything. Clearly there is space, as new build estates appear all the time. 
Now going back to the OPs topic, I have actually seen something similar in a property I was interested in, probably slightly different as this one had an agricultural occupancy condition. I assume it had land, at some point, but not now as the garden was nothing special in size and the price was very much the going price for the area, which is quite high.

If there is an interest from the OP in this property, it might be worth talking to a local, specialised solicitor, to find out exactly if it applies to them or not. I would expect the price to reflect this restriction and of course it also means that finding a seller later can prove to be tricky.

Sachs

eidand said:

Sachs said:

I agree, the tyranny of the homeowner is pretty bad in this country. I wish the greenbelt concept would just die but we are where we are.

I guess it depends how you look at it.

I don't have a problem with the "greenbelt" concept, I very much want that to remain in place. Not everyone wants roads and cement everywhere, with no green in sight.

What I would like to see is more options to buy land and self build on it. Somehow, the big builders are allowed to buy huge amounts of land, build and charge gazillions for it.

Each council has a register for people who want to self build however that amounts to nothing in practice. I've been on that register, where I live, for years and not once was I offered a chance to buy anything. Clearly there is space, as new build estates appear all the time. 
Now going back to the OPs topic, I have actually seen something similar in a property I was interested in, probably slightly different as this one had an agricultural occupancy condition. I assume it had land, at some point, but not now as the garden was nothing special in size and the price was very much the going price for the area, which is quite high.

If there is an interest from the OP in this property, it might be worth talking to a local, specialised solicitor, to find out exactly if it applies to them or not. I would expect the price to reflect this restriction and of course it also means that finding a seller later can prove to be tricky.

Thats primarily a land issue rather than planning. Land reform would also be very welcome though. Last time it got any momentum of course the Mail and Sun killed it with all the garden tax hysteria.

FreeBear

princeofpounds said: Wouldn't be necessary if they allowed working age people to buy land on the edge of villages and actually build something themselves; that would be something affordable to nearly anyone with a full time job.

But then again, if they stopped people buying second homes and holiday lets, areas like the Lake District would have quite a few more available properties. Such a policy might also help to reduce the cost of the houses and make them a little more affordable for the locals living in the area.