Agricultural Occupancy Condition

1246728

Replies

  • perrowperrow Forumite
    3 Posts
    Do you know if a couple who do not currently work in agriculture can buy an ag. tied smallholding with the intention of making it their main income once they take up occupation of the smallholding? Will this satisfy the conditions?
  • Richard_WebsterRichard_Webster Forumite
    7.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Do you know if a couple who do not currently work in agriculture can buy an ag. tied smallholding with the intention of making it their main income once they take up occupation of the smallholding? Will this satisfy the conditions?

    In principle, yes, I would expect it to do so, but it always important to look at the precise wording as there might be conditions as to the kind of agricultural use.
    RICHARD WEBSTER

    As a retired conveyancing solicitor I believe the information given in the post to be useful assuming any properties concerned are in England/Wales but I accept no liability for it.
  • Debt_Free_ChickDebt_Free_Chick Forumite
    13.3K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'd be interested in Planning_Officer's comments on the case I cited. This was an 8 acre holding with a 1970s bungalow with an ag-tie. The bungalow was actually a replacement for a 200 year old house that was past economic repair where there was obviously no ag-tie.

    Just dipping in before I go off to bed, but ......

    This is a very unusual situation. Where the original building had an ag-tie, the same would almost certainly apply to any replacement.

    But it is highly unusual for a new building to have an ag-tie, where the original did not. The rationale being that the old building was a simple "residence", so there would be no reason to impose an ag-tie.

    Do you have the full planning history from the LA?
    Warning ..... I'm a peri-menopausal axe-wielding maniac ;)
  • perrow wrote: »
    Could you provide me with information on this case law since it is very important. Many thanks
    Will do - I'll look it up at work next week as I can't remember it off the top of my head!
  • kcs41 wrote: »
    I asked what about the storage of my spare parts for my business , am I able to store these at the new house & have been told that I would need to apply for planning approval as it is not agricultural but would prob be refused.

    As I intend only to store parts at my home and no actual work is done there does anyone agree or disagree with my local planning officer.
    Have to agree with your planning officer I'm afraid - you would be storing parts to do with your employment, which is not a residential use. It would be a change of use to storage of parts in connection with a business. It doesn't matter whether work is done there or not unfortunately, as it's the storage that constitutes the change of use!
  • The bungalow was actually a replacement for a 200 year old house that was past economic repair where there was obviously no ag-tie. So first thing was not sure why ag-tie imposed in first place.
    Neither am I!! Sounds a bit odd, if the original dwelling wasn't subject to an ag-tie. I can only think of two possibilities for this - perhaps the replaceemnt dwelling was larger than the original and the agricultural justification was the only reason for allowing this? Or perhaps the most likely explanation is that you say the original one was beyond economic repair - if it was falling down and uninhabitable, an application for a new dwelling on the site may have been assessed on the basis that it did not replace a habitable dwelling and therefore was regarded as a completely new dwelling, hence the need for an ag-tie to justify it.
    I'd be interested to know if these factors would be sufficient in themselves to allow removal of the ag-tie without the tedious business of advertising for 12-18 months etc:
    1. It being a replacement dwelling for one with no ag-tie;
    2. Being on a holding of only 8 acres and therefore of dubious viability - don't they reckon now that you need 200-300 acres to have a viable unit(?);
    3. Not being in an area where there are farms that employ agricultural workers (other than immediate family); and
    4. Being in an area of relatively cheap housing (by no means an area for tourists, natural beauty or second homes etc) so no particular need to provide a pool of affordable housing for agricultural workers.
    To be honest, I doubt they would be. Not sure about Point 1 - depends on what can be unearthed regarding the planning history. Re. Point 2 - I don't think the size of the holding will matter, as agricultural ties just require someone to work in the locality rather than on a particular unit. Re. Point 3 - I would think that could be difficult to prove and agricultural methods and employment practices of local farms can always change. Re. Point 4 - even if it is cheap housing, does it mean that someone on a minimum agricultural wage could afford a 'normal' property? May be a point worth arguing, but I'm not aware of any relevant examples which could help unfortunately.

    I think some of these issues could support a case, but I doubt they'd justify the removal of an ag-tie on their own. I suspect that if the applicant was relying on them instead of doing any advertising, they may not be successful.
    The LPA had a policy document which referred in general terms to showing that the condition no longer had a purpose but actually sent a very detailed list of what they required in terms of advertising and noting interest over a period of 12-18 months, which I thought wasn't justified by their stated policy. Other nearby authorities had much more detailed polices actually setting out the advertising requirements in their policies.
    Does this document have any weight in terms of being Supplementary Planning Guidance or adopted in any other way? If not, I suspect that an Inspector may afford it only limited weight in reaching a decision if the Council have relied upon it, when it doesn't form part of the Developemnt Plan.
  • DemiDeeDemiDee Forumite
    521 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    Hi - this one is for Debt Free Chick,

    Sorry to post here, but I think that you aren't getting notifications about PMs so just wanted to let you know that one is waiting. Sorry folks!

    Dee
  • kcs41kcs41 Forumite
    3 Posts
    Hi Thanks Richard & Planning officer for your comments , if I was to store in my garage and not the existing unit would I need to apply for planning consent.

    Thanks
  • kcs41 wrote: »
    Hi Thanks Richard & Planning officer for your comments , if I was to store in my garage and not the existing unit would I need to apply for planning consent.

    Thanks
    By garage I assume you mean a residential garage - i.e. for a car? If so, the lawful use is a residential one - your proposed use is the storage of materials in connection with a business, so yes you would need planning permission. Basically, anywhere you store these parts will require planning permission, unless the existing use is also for storage.

    I'm assuming the amount of parts you want to store is quite large (not sure what these 'parts' are?) - if it's just a few items, then it's probably not enough to constitute a 'change of use', however if it's quite a few, then it will be a 'change of use' of the land/building where they are stored. Sorry that's a bit vague - hard to advise without knowing what the parts are and what your business is involved in!
  • kcs41kcs41 Forumite
    3 Posts
    Parts would half fill a double garage and still get a car in and are used for maintenance / repair of equipment used on farms & quarries and a lot of other Industries.

    Thanks
This discussion has been closed.
LATEST NEWS AND DEALS