Agricultural occupancy condition

[simonm]

I have spoke to an agent today who basically said there is no reason why you couldn't put animals on and and still fall within the condition, this depends upon the wording as set out in the condition ie solely or mainly in agriculture or forestry. From what i can gather the condition imposed on the house could either be a pita or summert and nowt...bit of a gamble really, just need to weigh up the pros and cons!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It may be that there is insufficient acreage for the small holding to be a viable business (bit of a joke since they say 60% of a farms' income is in benefits anyway so can't see any being viable in that case) but that the residence is conditioned so as to protect available / affordable housing for sector workers?

[richy_B]

I have spoke to an agent today who basically said there is no reason why you couldn't put animals on and and still fall within the condition, this depends upon the wording as set out in the condition ie solely or mainly in agriculture or forestry. From what i can gather the condition imposed on the house could either be a pita or summert and nowt...bit of a gamble really, just need to weigh up the pros and cons!

 

Can I ask what region it is? Some rules differ in Scotland and NI.

[dustydave]

You mention 'extending it' the LA would assess that differently to the development rights or usual planning on a non agric condition property; when permission was originally granted it would have been the minimum size needed to house a family, you would have to prove a need as to why it should be bigger. You don't get the usual permitted development rights. Also, how far you need to prove that you work in agriculture or are getting your income from the tied land depends on the clause in the original planning permission. A lot depends on the LA and also any neighbours with an agenda to hold over the buyer and that might include the seller; stranger things have happened. So less said to the agent/seller the better.

 

One last thing. To get the clause lifted the seller needs to prove that they attempted to sell as agicultural, but there were no buyers forthcoming, about 4-5 years or so. Often, even if you make an offer it won't be accepted because the seller is just going through this process with the agent, most often, complicit in this deceit. I say deceit because it can waste a lot of potential buyers time. It did mine:thumbdown:. Good luck.

Edited May 16, 2016 by dustydave

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

You mention 'extending it' the LA would assess that differently to the development rights or usual planning on a non agric condition property; when permission was originally granted it would have been the minimum size needed to house a family, you would have to prove a need as to why it should be bigger. You don't get the usual permitted development rights. Also, how far you need to prove that you work in agriculture or are getting your income from the tied land depends on the clause in the original planning permission. A lot depends on the LA and also any neighbours with an agenda to hold over the buyer and that might include the seller; stranger things have happened. So less said to the agent/seller the better.

 

One last thing. To get the clause lifted the seller needs to prove that they attempted to sell as agicultural, but there were no buyers forthcoming, about 4-5 years or so. Often, even if you make an offer it won't be accepted because the seller is just going through this process with the agent, most often, complicit in this deceit. I say deceit because it can waste a lot of potential buyers time. It did mine:thumbdown:. Good luck.

 

Wise words....

[simonm]

:thumbdown:From what i can gather the land owner has deceased and the property & land is being auctioned off by the family, their is too many ifs and buts if i am honest, we would have to sell the house we are in which we got for peanuts and has plenty of room for my vans etc. if it went tits up we would be knackered, if i had 200k sat doing nothing and could afford to buy it with a view to building a new dwelling and play the long arsed game with the la then i would jump on it, unfortunately i cant

[Stereo]

Horses can indeed be agricultural if they are used as grazing tools only. The moment people start bringing in feed and saddling them, it becomes equestrian. You won't ever get an extension while the tie exists in my experience.

 

Depending on how nosy your neighbours are, you are better off complying for a while and then letting the land out to whatever and going for a certificate of lawfulness in 4/10 years time, depending.

 

The other option is to get a good agricultural consultant to say that it is not viable for agriculture and apply to get it lifted. We had one around here. 200 odd acres with a big bungalow. They sold off 150 acres and then said the 'farm' wasn't viable and they got the bloody thing lifted despite much opposition from local councils. Now a residential house with a 50 acre garden.