Definition of livestock - help!

[Goldenstar]

Try and get a statement from the NFU? Or ask them for a contact who could provide you with one?

Op should not be doing it’s a legal issue her solicitor should advise her .
The NFU can’t give an opinion on the a covenant on a sale of a house it’s a legal matter .
Nothing can stop a neighbour with an interest in the covenant causing bother that’s where indemnity insurance comes in .
If I where Op I would be trying to collect evidence of the land being used for horses dates that sort of thing .
No one can tell you if you are going to be subject of an action it’s not possible .
OP needs to understand the level of risk .
Then decide if she is up for it .

Making the vendor take indemnity insurance is wise and cheap .

 

[Boughtabay]

Op should not be doing it’s a legal issue her solicitor should advise her .
The NFU can’t give an opinion on the a covenant on a sale of a house it’s a legal matter .
Nothing can stop a neighbour with an interest in the covenant causing bother that’s where indemnity insurance comes in .
If I where Op I would be trying to collect evidence of the land being used for horses dates that sort of thing .
No one can tell you if you are going to be subject of an action it’s not possible .
OP needs to understand the level of risk .
Then decide if she is up for it .

Making the vendor take indemnity insurance is wise and cheap .

Of course not, but if OP wants pointing in the direction of govt definitions in support of horses not being livestock, and also contact with ag solicitors who may help/have experience in this area I’d expect NFU to have some decent leads…

 

[Goldenstar]

She’s wasting her time .
It’s what’s meant in law by livestock in the context of that covenant the history of which needs teasing out and any case law relevant .
Its a job for suitable lawyer .
But there’s no guarantee she won’t find an unpleasant neighbour who will have a pop at her nothing can guarantee that.

 

[PurBee]

What is the land/property registered as?

From all my agri land browsing and looking at laws regarding applying for change of use status with land - it seems those properties that are registered ‘equestrian’ - means that they can no longer be used for anything other than recreational equestrian activities, so no ‘livestock’ raising for meat/food chain.
Equestrian classification means horses kept for human recreational activities, and not food production.

If you wanted to farm crops AND have pleasure horses, you’d have to allocate fields to be registered ‘Agricultural’, and other fields to be allocated ‘Equestrian’ usage - apply for change of status to specific fields on a farmstead.

Your potential property sounds like its already been registered ‘Equestrian’ usage - which would cause a clause to be added to not be raising ’livestock’ (anything that produces food) on the land, because its no longer registered as ’agricultural’ land.

The classification matters because if you wanted to crop the land and receive agri-grants/subsidies, and have traceable crops, the land/farm HAS to be registered agricultural.

I see a fair amount of clauses attached to land sales, and they are because of the classification the land is currently registered. You can always apply for ‘change of use’ status on any land.
Obviously you need a decent solicitor to investigate what status the property is currently registered as. That likely will explain the covenant/clause for the lands use. As there are already stables built and the land has a history of being a pleasure equestrian property, i’d guess its registered as equestrian, and that negates any agricultural activities on the land i.e raising livestock or crops for food, hence the clause.

Many equestrian properties advertised for sale dont bother stating the covenant of ‘no livestock/crop rearing on already registered ‘equestrian’ use land‘ - as that is now generally widely known in the agri community, but not so much the equine community perhaps. But change of use acquisition from equestrian to agri use is highly possible, and vice versa. Except lands of ‘special interest’ ‘natural beauty’ ‘historic sites’ - theyre trickier to get registered to farm in ANY capacity.

Pleasure horses for human entertainment/riding are not livestock in the eyes of the agri industry laws. That ‘dog’ law you quoted is an out-lier in regards to general livestock classification, and in the dog law context i guess they wanted to include all general farm-type animals, and as horses are common amongst livestock farmland, they were included as livestock within that law.

If you were to have horses for their manure (to sell as fertiliser or to use on crops) and/or wanted to use your horses for old-fashioned ploughing the land for crops as their MAIN function, and pulling a cart through villages selling veg you grow, or at farmers markets, and no pleasure riding as the horses MAIN activity - they’d be considered livestock.

Horses used for breeding horses and riding is for human recreation fun, and not food related, so the land they occupy should strictly be registered as ‘equestrian use’, and the horses are essentially seen as ‘pets’ by the agri lawmakers.
Correct registration is important so the government of any country can know how many acres are available at any given time, for food production.
Equestrian use registration is useful to know as potential food crop land used for other purposes, and any equine bio-control can be more easily implemented should a viral/bacterial outbreak arise.

For your property having this clause attached, it sounds like its already registered ‘equestrian use’ - most long-standing equine properties/lands are - and its a bit baffling why the solicitors are struggling to clear this up for you. Get the land folio number and enquire with the main agri dept what the land is registered as. Then why the clause is added should become apparent.
The only other example i can think of lands having a ‘no livestock’ clause added would potentially be ‘brownfield sites’ - lands used as essentially toxic waste dumps, that would be too toxic to feed animals off due to off-gassing of whatever has been buried, but there would likely be ‘no crops’ clause too, due to land toxicity. Your property is long established as equine use and highly unlikely to be an old toxic waste dump!

 

[Marigold4]

What is the land/property registered as?

From all my agri land browsing and looking at laws regarding applying for change of use status with land - it seems those properties that are registered ‘equestrian’ - means that they can no longer be used for anything other than recreational equestrian activities, so no ‘livestock’ raising for meat/food chain.
Equestrian classification means horses kept for human recreational activities, and not food production.

If you wanted to farm crops AND have pleasure horses, you’d have to allocate fields to be registered ‘Agricultural’, and other fields to be allocated ‘Equestrian’ usage - apply for change of status to specific fields on a farmstead.

Your potential property sounds like its already been registered ‘Equestrian’ usage - which would cause a clause to be added to not be raising ’livestock’ (anything that produces food) on the land, because its no longer registered as ’agricultural’ land.

The classification matters because if you wanted to crop the land and receive agri-grants/subsidies, and have traceable crops, the land/farm HAS to be registered agricultural.

I see a fair amount of clauses attached to land sales, and they are because of the classification the land is currently registered. You can always apply for ‘change of use’ status on any land.
Obviously you need a decent solicitor to investigate what status the property is currently registered as. That likely will explain the covenant/clause for the lands use. As there are already stables built and the land has a history of being a pleasure equestrian property, i’d guess its registered as equestrian, and that negates any agricultural activities on the land i.e raising livestock or crops for food, hence the clause.

Many equestrian properties advertised for sale dont bother stating the covenant of ‘no livestock/crop rearing on already registered ‘equestrian’ use land‘ - as that is now generally widely known in the agri community, but not so much the equine community perhaps. But change of use acquisition from equestrian to agri use is highly possible, and vice versa. Except lands of ‘special interest’ ‘natural beauty’ ‘historic sites’ - theyre trickier to get registered to farm in ANY capacity.

Pleasure horses for human entertainment/riding are not livestock in the eyes of the agri industry laws. That ‘dog’ law you quoted is an out-lier in regards to general livestock classification, and in the dog law context i guess they wanted to include all general farm-type animals, and as horses are common amongst livestock farmland, they were included as livestock within that law.

If you were to have horses for their manure (to sell as fertiliser or to use on crops) and/or wanted to use your horses for old-fashioned ploughing the land for crops as their MAIN function, and pulling a cart through villages selling veg you grow, or at farmers markets, and no pleasure riding as the horses MAIN activity - they’d be considered livestock.

Horses used for breeding horses and riding is for human recreation fun, and not food related, so the land they occupy should strictly be registered as ‘equestrian use’, and the horses are essentially seen as ‘pets’ by the agri lawmakers.
Correct registration is important so the government of any country can know how many acres are available at any given time, for food production.
Equestrian use registration is useful to know as potential food crop land used for other purposes, and any equine bio-control can be more easily implemented should a viral/bacterial outbreak arise.

For your property having this clause attached, it sounds like its already registered ‘equestrian use’ - most long-standing equine properties/lands are - and its a bit baffling why the solicitors are struggling to clear this up for you. Get the land folio number and enquire with the main agri dept what the land is registered as. Then why the clause is added should become apparent.
The only other example i can think of lands having a ‘no livestock’ clause added would potentially be ‘brownfield sites’ - lands used as essentially toxic waste dumps, that would be too toxic to feed animals off due to off-gassing of whatever has been buried, but there would likely be ‘no crops’ clause too, due to land toxicity. Your property is long established as equine use and highly unlikely to be an old toxic waste dump!

Thanks very much for your reply and your research. That makes interesting reading. Unfortunately this is a private covenant rather than an issue regarding the classification of the land. The surrounding properties have the benefit of the covenant so regardless of whether it is registered as equestrian or recreational, I think they can enforce it if horses are livestock. The seller's solicitor says they aren't but I just need to be 100% sure.

 

[Glitter's fun]

I'm in Scotland so legal matters sometimes vary.
We have a croft which has to be "farmed". We can keep anything that is defined as commercial farming. This includes paying liveries or working/breeding horses, but not purely leisure horses. I'm guessing that the opposite would be true for you?

If your situation is that this is an individual arrangement, there will be no precedent to fall back on, so you need in writing that what you intend to do would be ok.
Can you ask your solicitor to write or email, laying out your exact intentions?

 

[limestonelil]

Fascinating thread Marigold, and do hope it can work out in your favour.Woolly legal definitions don't do any favours.I'm thinking GS has nailed it at post 63 tbh, if anyone takes up the baton for the other side it could be very expensive and difficult. Must be sorted before purchase.

 

[Marigold4]

Of course not, but if OP wants pointing in the direction of govt definitions in support of horses not being livestock, and also contact with ag solicitors who may help/have experience in this area I’d expect NFU to have some decent leads…

NFU wouldn't talk to me as I'm not a member

 

[Marigold4]

Fascinating thread Marigold, and do hope it can work out in your favour.Woolly legal definitions don't do any favours.I'm thinking GS has nailed it at post 63 tbh, if anyone takes up the baton for the other side it could be very expensive and difficult. Must be sorted before purchase.

Rang the BHS today and they may have found a solution! They went down the route of what was the INTENTION of the original covenant. Given that the previous owner and original covenantor kept horses in the stables at the property and the covenantee was a neighbour and didn't object, it clearly wasn't her intention to include horses otherwise she would have objected! The covenant prohibits "chickens, fowl, pigs and other livestock" so the specifics included in the list show that she intended to prohibit a smallholding. So if we get a statutory declaration from seller stating all that, we should be OK. What do you think? I think it's a great argument but then again, I REALLY want to buy this property!

 

[Boughtabay]

NFU wouldn't talk to me as I'm not a member

That’s a shame but not totally unexpected - worth a try!