Agricultural linked planning consents

L

Lucyad

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 September 2009
Messages
603
Visit site
Looking for some advice or experiences of agricultural linked planning consents. I am looking at a property which the consent states ' the dwelling shall onnly be occupied by a full time agricultural worker employed at ....farm, or by a dependant of such a person residing with him or her..'.

It is currently run as a livery yard. We would be looking to convert some of the outbuildings for my partner's business. He is a qualified agricultural engineer, however his business is renewables (does include some groundworks i.e. boreholes etc!). So he would be working on site, but not strictly in full agricultural capacity. I work full time, so would not be running it as a livery yard - would use stables not converted to business use for my own horses, likewise land, possibly taking a couple on DIY (but not taking my full time!).

We would happily have a few pet beasts - sheep, for example, or a pet cow or 2.

Any ideas / experiences as to whether this would be acceptable to planning? Obviously we would need planning consents to change the shed currently used for horses (one of 2), to business use, so would need to be legally OK in terms of planning.
 
I'd talk to a specalist lawyer but I suspect it would be a problem as neither you nor your husband earn their living from agricultural occupations.

There are lots of ads in the back of farming magazines for people who can get ag ties lifted. I've no idea how easy/ costly this would be or whether you could live there while you were getting the tie lifted.

Ag tie'd properties are much cheaper than those without because of these problems.

I guess possibly you'd also have a problem getting a mortgage as the mortgage co would want to see conditions met and they will know your occupations.
 
Ah, I hadn't thought of the mortgage lender possibly picking up on it as well. I will speak to vendor further, and planning (before solicitor), but it does sound more complicated than the advertising first suggested, unfortunately.
 
Lucyad said:
Ah, I hadn't thought of the mortgage lender possibly picking up on it as well. I will speak to vendor further, and planning (before solicitor), but it does sound more complicated than the advertising first suggested, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Your lender will definitely pick up on it. From their point of view it's a big risk as if you were to default on the mortgage and ultimately the property was repossessed they would then force a sale which would be to a much reduced market. Ag. ties are a bit of a nightmare TBH.
 
I think you would struggle to get change of use for the office. You would also not comply with the occupancy condition (referred to in the trade as an ag tag). If you apply for a change of use (for the office or removal of the ag tag), you would probably have to advertise for sale for 6-12 months for its current use to demonstrate there is no longer a need. I have no idea on the lending side of thing. First off i would go the the councils planning department and ask for some pre planning advise. But I imagine its a no goer I'm afraid.

You probably find if it doesn't sell, the owners will go to the council and apply for it to be lifted then it will be back on the market at full market value.
 
I may be wrong but though ag tagged properties were virtually un mortgageable given lenders difficulties if they ever had to repo!
 
The small farm where I keep my horses has an agricultural tie and it did reduce the price. He is an agricultural engineer and works for a company rather than on the premises so he must have got approval. This is in Surrey btw, I expect individual authorities handle things their own way.
 
If u have lived there for 10 years and prove that you have not complied with the ag restriction then a very good solicitor can remove it. I would speak to a solicitor as maybe previous non compliance may count. Ob if u get it removed then the value shoots up. If it goes wrong they'll enforce u.
 
Just out of interest if you bought the whole thing for cash (so no mortgage issues) and lived in it being non compliant what can the council actually do?
Do they just force you to sell it/ move out or as the planning is conditional on your occupation could they actually require you to pull the house down?
If you buy it but don't live there while you spend a fortune on solicitors to have the tie lifted is it still an issue because there isn't any 'occupancy'

If you had lots of spare cash and could get properties at 50% of their market value then spend a few years fighting to have the ties lifted it could actually be a worthwhile investment if you didn't need to live in them and the worst case was you had to sell them on again.
 
If you lived there and were non compliant for 12 years, you could apply to the council for a 'certificate of lawfulness' which amends the planning conditions. If you were found to be living in one without being compliant, they can evict you and or force you to sell (I used to work as an agricultural planning advisor - I have been with the police to evict someone - it does happen!).

The only way they could force you to knock it down was if it was built/converted without planning permission - I have seen this happen too!
 
I am not sure to be honest. I've never come across that siutation before - i don't think there would be anything legaly stoping you. It would have to be for 12 plus years and with no mortgage.
 
PeterNatt said:
Your incomes must derive purely from an agricultural source to be able to live in an agricultural tied property.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly your local council can FORCE you to become compliant so your main income MUST be in the form of agriculture and horses do not count I would be very careful as you are not complying with the conditiond set out by your council by not being agriculture based. having a few sheep or cows is sadly not enough.
 
That's where I wasn't sure, they read as a condition of occupancy - not ownership. There are plenty of laywers advertising in the farming press to lift ag ties, so (hypthetically!) I buy a nice smallholding for £200k with an ag tie, don't live in it so I don't breach the occupancy conditions. Spend say, 3 years and £50k on lawyers to get the tie lifted - then sell it for £400k that would be a pretty good return on my investment.
 
Muddyboots said:
the occupier, not nec the owner!
Click to expand...

Exactly, the hole in the law. Anyone can buy it if they then rent it out to someone in agriculture!

Someone in my family had a tie which they did manage to get lifted - the property had almost certainly been non-agric occupied for 10-12 years but they had to market it at the lower value and NOT be able to sell it to prove that it was not a suitable property for an ag tie. It was marketed for over a year.
 
sbloom said:
Exactly, the hole in the law. Anyone can buy it if they then rent it out to someone in agriculture!

Someone in my family had a tie which they did manage to get lifted - the property had almost certainly been non-agric occupied for 10-12 years but they had to market it at the lower value and NOT be able to sell it to prove that it was not a suitable property for an ag tie. It was marketed for over a year.
Click to expand...


Agree! This is what has to happen to get them removed. And you have to advertise properly (not just put it in Beekeepers weekly or some random publication). When i worked at the council, i was hot on this and wanted to see evidence. If they werent able to prove that they had done all they could to sell/let it, then the applicaiton was refused!
 
We bought a house with 3 acres with an Ag. Tie on it nearly 2 years ago.

OH works within agriculture as a contractor but neither of our jobs derive income from our house/land. I work as a PA in headhunting!!

The rules stipulated that one of us had to work within agriculture to be able to buy the house and as OH works for an agricultural contractor and drives tractors, that was us covered.

I think it is unlikely we could have afforded the property otherwise. I have no idea what will happen if/and when we come to sell it with the tie on it but aren't worrying too much at the moment because we aren't going anywhere in a hurry.
 
Polos Mum said:
That's where I wasn't sure, they read as a condition of occupancy - not ownership. There are plenty of laywers advertising in the farming press to lift ag ties, so (hypthetically!) I buy a nice smallholding for £200k with an ag tie, don't live in it so I don't breach the occupancy conditions. Spend say, 3 years and £50k on lawyers to get the tie lifted - then sell it for £400k that would be a pretty good return on my investment.
Click to expand...


You would still have to try and sell it before the local council would consider removing the condition. These companies that advertise such a service would oversee all of this. There is then the risk that someone comes along and offers for it. You could try and hide this from the council but when the planning notice went up on the gateway, the offerer would no doubt be the first one to object and you then could be left with no option but to sell to this person.

The council may also see through it if you have owned the property for such a short length of time - I know I would have been sceptical if the application had landed on my desk.

Values are normally 70% of open market. So if you buy £200,000, keep for 3 years, sell for £260,000 - is £60,000 going to cover running cost, estate agent and solicitors fees for buying and selling, legal and planning fees to remove the condition (could seriously escalate if the application goes to appeal). This is on the assumption that market conditions stay the same. If house prices went down, you would be looking at less of an uplift! Don't think this looks like such as attractive investment now!
 
carolineb said:
We bought a house with 3 acres with an Ag. Tie on it nearly 2 years ago.

OH works within agriculture as a contractor but neither of our jobs derive income from our house/land. I work as a PA in headhunting!!

The rules stipulated that one of us had to work within agriculture to be able to buy the house and as OH works for an agricultural contractor and drives tractors, that was us covered.

I think it is unlikely we could have afforded the property otherwise. I have no idea what will happen if/and when we come to sell it with the tie on it but aren't worrying too much at the moment because we aren't going anywhere in a hurry.
Click to expand...

This is a good example of when the clause is not specified to one holding.
 
Dee O'Dorant said:
Yup, and in the clause quoted by the OP in her OP it is specified.
Click to expand...

True! the above example shows how they can be more loosly worded to permit more! I have seen one before that specaify that that person should work in the 'racing industry'!

My husband works in forestry so we keep our eye out for one. We would compley if it was a general 'agriculature' clasue like the above!
 
Polos Mum said:
That's where I wasn't sure, they read as a condition of occupancy - not ownership. There are plenty of laywers advertising in the farming press to lift ag ties, so (hypthetically!) I buy a nice smallholding for £200k with an ag tie, don't live in it so I don't breach the occupancy conditions. Spend say, 3 years and £50k on lawyers to get the tie lifted - then sell it for £400k that would be a pretty good return on my investment.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that in order to get the condition overturned, you need to show that YOU have been living there and no complying for x years. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, claim to comply by having a tenant who complies and then also get to overturn it - there would be no basis for overturning it then!

There is also a bit of a moral thing here. The reason these properties are allowed to be built is solely because they will be for low paid agricultural workers. Much as a 200k profit would be very nice, do you not feel any compunction at permanently removing this provision?
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
I'm pretty sure that in order to get the condition overturned, you need to show that YOU have been living there and no complying for x years. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, claim to comply by having a tenant who complies and then also get to overturn it - there would be no basis for overturning it then!

There is also a bit of a moral thing here. The reason these properties are allowed to be built is solely because they will be for low paid agricultural workers. Much as a 200k profit would be very nice, do you not feel any compunction at permanently removing this provision?
Click to expand...


THis is the bit that gets my goat. Greenfield planning was obtained for a largish estate where I used to live. Condition was it was low-priced workplace homes with quarter of an acre and a very goodsized business unit for each house. Prices were around £140K where a similar spec house on a large plot with double garage and big extra unit would be around double. BUt you had to run a business from it. This has now been overturned and the jobs that were supposed to brought in to the village have now mostly gone:( but the owners have made a nice little profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top