Do I comply with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition

[Dam...@indigro.co.uk]

I am interested in a property which is subject to an agricultural occupancy condition and wish to clarify my compliance. I work full time in agriculture, I derive all my income from agriculture, and I physically work almost every day on farms in the local area (apart from the odd day in my home office). My understanding of the condition means I am compliant, but when I spoke to the estate agent and told them I was an agronomist they were very vague, told me that vets and butchers would not comply and so I probably wouldn't either!

I have since spoken to the planning authority who were unable to give me a definitive answer and suggested I seek legal advice before making a purchase, but seemed to think I would comply with the terms of the AOC. On their advice I have applied for the original planning decision to determine the detail of the AOC, but apparently these are quite standard.

Could this be a case of the estate agent trying to dissuade potential purchasers in order to assist in the lifting of the AOC or are they right? Any thoughts or guidance would be gratefully received.

Thanks!

[Percy Picacity]

I really don't know the answer, and IANAL, but it seems to me that the
point of agricultural accommodation escaping planning controls is
because the farm worker has to get up at dawn and walk to the adjacent
farm to work, and is clearly not paid enough to afford a motor car,
apart from the burden of having to commute a long way on top of an 18
hour day. Also he or she may need to be immediately on hand to cope
with various emergencies involving stock, plant or buildings. This
hardly applies to someone who works on various farms.

(Written by an observer of the misuse of 'holiday' accommodation for
permanent, cheap occupation with no council tax, which is a completely
different issue!)


--

Percy Picacity

[dam...@indigro.co.uk]

I understand your point Percy, but considering the massive decline in agricultural employment since the house was built and the condition applied, (mainly due to mechanisation but also in part due to the outsourcing of agricultural services, like agronomy), and the huge increase in rural house prices, it seems a more contemporary assessment of affordable rural housing for those working in the countryside should be applied. If not, such properties would remain empty or eventually be occupied by one of those responsible for the aforementioned hike in rural property prices who can afford to lift the agricultural tie after proving a lack of compliant purchasers.

As for the 18 hour days and pay so low as to be able to afford a car, the arable growers where I operate would be laughing all the way from their cruise liner sun loungers. Just take a look at current commodity prices and farm subsidy rates!

I would happily take an income, working hours or commuting distance test compared to a farm worker if it were required, but my understanding of the tie is simpler than that in so far as I clearly do "derive the majority of my income from agriculture".

However, these holiday homes that require no council tax payments sound interesting...! ;)

[Janet]

In article <d7fdb013-3c2d-4db8...@googlegroups.com>,
Dam...@indigro.co.uk says...

More likely a case of the agent not knowing what "agronomist " means.



Why not phone and ask the seller or their solicitor; they probably have
a copy of the original restriction.

Janet

[Janet]

In article <6atvoc....@news.alt.net>, k...@under.the.invalid says...

> (Written by an observer of the misuse of 'holiday' accommodation for
> permanent, cheap occupation with no council tax, which is a completely
> different issue!)

Whatever sort of holiday accommodations are exempted from CT?

CT is payable (by the property owner) on
holiday letting accommodation, or "holiday" second homes.

Janet

[Peter Crosland]

You need to look at the actual planning consent for the property in
question. However, agricultural occupancy conditions are usually tightly
drawn and are based on a genuine and proven need that cannot be met by
other properties in the immediate locality. In your case that
requirement is very unlikely to be met. This is because you only need to
live in the general area and your job does not require you to live in
the immediate vicinity or be available 24/7.

The agricultural occupancy rule has been widely abused and many
applications are still made that are turned down because there is no
functional need. One of the ways of getting the AOC lifted is to market
the property for a year to prove if there is still a need. These
exercises are, or should be, scrutinised closely by the planners to see
that the marketing has been genuine both in the degree of effort put
into it and that the price is realistic. Sellers can be very devious and
one recent local case all requests to view the property were refused or
potential buyers were told the property had already been sold.

--
Regards Peter Crosland

[Percy Picacity]

I'm thinking of chalets or lodges or whatever you call them. Static
caravans. `Ideal if you can afford to go on holiday to Spain or
wherever over the winter, or your local council fails to enforce the
rules. Possibly because one is bedbound and receiving social care.

--

Percy Picacity

[Janet]

In article <6av4j2....@news.alt.net>, k...@under.the.invalid says...

>
> On 2013-02-08 00:55:02 +0000, Janet said:
>
> > In article <6atvoc....@news.alt.net>, k...@under.the.invalid says...
> >
> >> (Written by an observer of the misuse of 'holiday' accommodation for
> >> permanent, cheap occupation with no council tax, which is a completely
> >> different issue!)
> >
> > Whatever sort of holiday accommodations are exempted from CT?
> >
> > CT is payable (by the property owner) on
> > holiday letting accommodation, or "holiday" second homes.
> >
> > Janet
>
> I'm thinking of chalets or lodges or whatever you call them. Static
> caravans.

They are liable for CT.

Janet.

[Percy Picacity]

Arrangements may vary, but at least in some cases the site owner pays
business rate which covers the chalets, provided they are not
(nominally) used for permanent residence.


--

Percy Picacity

[tim.....]

"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
news:6b1ok8....@news.alt.net...

I'm confused as to what usage you are referring to by the inclusion of
"nominally".

Holiday home planning restrictions are usually of the form: may not be the
owner's main home, must be left unoccupied for (usually) one full month per
year, (which for simplicity, the site owner will nominate).

Sometimes (but not very often) they have clauses about, must be occupied by
different people each (defined) rental period.

Are you suggesting that a site owner "turning a blind eye" to the
restriction is "nominally not used for permanent residence", or something
else?

tim

[Percy Picacity]

The site owner cannot know whether they have a house somewhere else,
they may have to declare that they do. What usually seems to happen is
that when they move in the residents leave every year for the month of
non-occupancy, but ultimately they get too old and frail to do so. It
is then in everyone's interestes (especially the local authority's, as
they might become responsible for rehousing if they enforced the
condition) to turn a blind eye.


--

Percy Picacity

[tim.....]

"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message

news:6b1uie....@news.alt.net...

thanks

[Jonathan]

On Feb 8, 12:55 am, Janet <h...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In article <6atvoc.tqb.1...@news.alt.net>, k...@under.the.invalid says...

Business rates are payable on holiday lets. There is currently a 100%
exemption in force if the rateable value is £6,000 or less.

Jonathan

[dam...@indigro.co.uk]

Thanks for the replies (and the side debate regarding holiday homes' liability to council tax!). Since my last post I have received a copy of the original plannning decision from the local authority and the condition is thus:

"The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons employed locally in agriculture as defined in Section 221(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, or in forestry; persons who when last employed were employed as aforesaid, and the dependents of such persons."

According to the Town and Country Planning Act:

""agriculture" includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and " agricultural" shall be construed accordingly;"

It seems very difficult to get a simple answer to this simple condition (I have spoken to the estate agent, planning authority and even the NFU legal department) but, with full understanding of the reason and intention for the original AOC, and not wishing to argue for its lifting, could someone please tell me why my job as an agronomist (working locally in agriculture) would not comply with these terms? Or to make it even more simple, could a planning department argue that an agronomist does not work in agriculture?

Thanks in desperation to anyone who can help!

[dam...@indigro.co.uk]

And if it makes any (technical difference) we do currently own a registered holding and have a flock of sheep which we sell for meat and breeding - but this is more of a hobby than a main source of income.

[Peter Crosland]

The reason is that your job, whilst it may be classed as agricultural
does not requires you to live in the immediate vicinity of the property.
The agricultural tie will only have been given because there was no
other suitable accommodation in the immediate locality and that the
nature of the farming activity required the employee to live onsite to
deal with emergencies connected with that agricultural business.

Furthermore the need has to be substantiated by a professionally
prepared independent assessment of the commercial viability of the
enterprise. Whilst the Act has a widely drawn definition of agriculture
in practice there have been numerous appeal decisions that have
confirmed the above rules. So it would not be granted for a business
that is not likely to be viable. Your small domestic flock would not
therefore count as an adequate reason for you to live on site.

If there was a good case to have the tie lifted I would expect the owner
to apply because the sale price would then be substantially higher. On a
practical note you may well find it very difficult to get a mortgage on
the property since the lender will be aware that if they needed to sell
the property the market would be much smaller than for a house without a
tie.

--
Regards Peter Crosland

[livelifean...@gmail.com]

Hi Damien I seen your post about being an agronomist applying to buy a property with an agricultural tie.
Did the council find you eligable?

[war...@hotmail.co.uk]

No, business rates are paid on holiday lets but they have to meet HRMCS rules to qualify. I know I have two.

Jonathan

[happysp...@gmail.com]

You mean that perhaps the agent actually wants to receive no offers at all so the seller can justify applying to get the AOC lifted?

Presumably a house with such a restriction is not worth anything like as much as it would worth be without the AOC.

Who would enforce the AOC if the resident was not (or ceased to be) comliant?

Robert

[Peter Crosland]

Quite possible they don't want offers as you describe. The property
would as a rule of thumb be worth 30% less with the tie. The local
planning authority are responsible for compliance. However, in many
cases they simply don't bother to check. After ten years continuous
occupation by someone not compliant the owner can apply for a
certificate of lawful development and have the tie lifted.



--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[R. Mark Clayton]

Lawful use.

[Brian Reay]

On 11/11/2017 20:09, happysp...@gmail.com wrote:

Around 20 years ago, we looked at a property which had a AOC and looked
into the possibility of having it 'lifted'.

It soon became obvious that not only was getting it lifted a long
process, and by no means easy (ie likely to succeed), if it did - at
least before your purchased (you don't need to own somewhere to arrange
such things!) the value would immediately 'rocket'. Conversely, if you
bought and then tried to remove the AOC, you could be such with a
property you couldn't live in.

As for how 'compliant' you had to be- ie would a few chickens count and
a goat- we couldn't get a clear answer.

[Fredxxx]

I might also have thought that protected characteristics, such as
disability and inability to work through disability, would trump any AOC.

[Mark Goodge]

That's not an issue. Provided you were previously working in
agriculture or forestry as your main or only job, you continue to
qualify for the condition even if you have to stop working for health
reasons (or you lose your job or you retire). You only cease to
qualify if and when you subsequently start working in a different
industry as your sole or main job. So inability to work due to
disability acquired after legitimately occupying the property would
not have any effect on the qualification.

As for the minimum conditions necessary to comply, there are none. The
condition is a duck test; if it appears to a court that you are (or
most recently were) working in agriculture or forestry as your sole or
main occupation, then you qualify. If it doesn't, then you don't. If
you are an edge case and you think you might just be on the qualifying
side of the dividing line, then you are perfectly entitled to suck it
and see if the local authority (and subsequently a court, if
necessary) agrees with you. But they can only decide on actual,
current circumstances, which have to be in place before you request
the ruling. It's not the local authority's role, or the court's, to
tell you in advance how they will interpret any particular
hypothetical scenario.

Mark