Agricultural Ownership Condition?
Discussion
I have no experience of this, so I'm not sure if you can do what you said above.
But I do know of a guy who started up a fencing business which allowed him to buy a agricultural house. The fencing company wasn't very profitable so shut it down after 6 months. He got the agricultural condition lifted after 2 years and sold the house for double what he had paid for it.
I'm sure he had to jump through a few hoops, but the system looks ripe for abuse. For example one of the reasons he said he needed the condition lifted was because he could't sell the house, to prove this he had it advertised for over a year at a inflated cost.
Also I remember reading a couple of years ago that some people had bought houses with the condition on and no one had picked up on it, bad conveyancing or very well hidden I don't know
It certainly looks like an interesting avenue to explore, but I would want to make sure it was a place I would be happy to live in if it didn't pan out.
But I do know of a guy who started up a fencing business which allowed him to buy a agricultural house. The fencing company wasn't very profitable so shut it down after 6 months. He got the agricultural condition lifted after 2 years and sold the house for double what he had paid for it.
I'm sure he had to jump through a few hoops, but the system looks ripe for abuse. For example one of the reasons he said he needed the condition lifted was because he could't sell the house, to prove this he had it advertised for over a year at a inflated cost.
Also I remember reading a couple of years ago that some people had bought houses with the condition on and no one had picked up on it, bad conveyancing or very well hidden I don't know
It certainly looks like an interesting avenue to explore, but I would want to make sure it was a place I would be happy to live in if it didn't pan out.
Edited by xstian on Saturday 31st March 08:15
mike74 said:
Probably is legal, pretty unethical thing to do though given the reasoning behind it being Agricultural Occupancy in the first place
I suppose in terms of underhand, immoral, property related behaviour it's no surprise that some scumbag would try and do this.
What is there role in modern day farming? Most are now bought by people as a cheap way to get land for horses.I suppose in terms of underhand, immoral, property related behaviour it's no surprise that some scumbag would try and do this.
If you where buying up small tied cottages and then renting them back to farm workers at an inflated price, I might agree with you.
I house I was talking about above is a 1970 3 bed detached with 12 acres. Sold for £180k in Norfolk 2014. Before it sold it was on the market for at least a year.
xstian said:
Most are now bought by people as a cheap way to get land for horses.
I think you're confusing an agricultural tie with agricultural use.Also, equestrian is a separate land use, in Planning terms, to agricultural, so you'd still need Planning Permission to change the use of the landholding from agricultural to equestrian, unless you are very careful (and some Authorities have a BIG downer on such applications, as they are taking land out of agricultural production).
mike74 said:
Probably is legal, pretty unethical thing to do though given the reasoning behind it being Agricultural Occupancy in the first place
I suppose in terms of underhand, immoral, property related behaviour it's no surprise that some scumbag would try and do this.
How about if the house only has 1 acre, and is priced above what most farm workers could afford anyway, is your rant still relevant?I suppose in terms of underhand, immoral, property related behaviour it's no surprise that some scumbag would try and do this.
blade7 said:
How about if the house only has 1 acre...
As above: don't confuse an agricultural tie with agricultural use.A dwelling with an agricultural tie does not have to be a sustainable agricultural unit in is own right; its purpose is to accommodate an agricultural worker.
The fact that prevailing property values are well above what an agricultural worker could afford is kind of the whole point. The idea is to preserve enough housing exclusively for agricultural workers to support the farming economy. Many such properties are owned/purchased by farms, farming conglomerates or rural estates - who can afford to amortise the cost over several generations - and are then rented to their workers at affordable prices.
As such, in terms of the Planning intentions behind such ties, I have to say that I sympathise with Mike's comments: it's a pretty s
tty, unethical thing to do at best and, while you would probably get away with it, it borders on deliberate fraud and deception and the LPA does have powers to challenge the legitimacy of the occupation if there is evidence that is the case.If, however, you genuinely believe that the dwelling no longer has a role to play in the local rural economy, the owner can make an application to remove the agricultural tie on that grounds alone (and to do so will obviously then realise the full, open-market value of the property).
blade7 said:
Apparently the tie cannot be removed for 10 years, not something I've seen on a listing before.
That implies that it was imposed recently? If so, it will have been for good reason.I'd be interested to see the specific wording, however, as I'm struggling to see how the 10 year limitation could be legally implemented: there's nothing I can immediately think of in Section 73 of the T&CPA that would preclude the condition being removed as a material minor amendment. You're not allowed to use a Section 73 to vary the timescale for commencement or submission of reserved matters on an approval, but there's nothing I'm aware of to say that other time limitations can't be varied or removed.
You'd need to justify its removal, however, which would be easier said than done
blade7 said:
I'd be in good company...
You'd be in company if you took up drug pushing, shoplifting or street robbery. That's not to say that it would be good company: just because others have done it doesn't make it any more morally acceptable. 
I worked for someone that lives on the same road for a year, engaged in engineering work that had very little do with agriculture, and heard how he and others had got around the restriction. In any case I spoke to the agent and after a lot of interest they're expecting it to be under offer shortly.Equus said:
In which case I'd be interested if you could post (or PM me) details of the property in question. I'd be intrigued to see the wording of this strange 'no removal within10 years' condition.
I'd guess it is part of a covenant on the land, or part of the conditions of sale, for the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread. The vendor doesnt want to sell at say 75% without the tie, only to see the tie removed next year the new owner instantly make a 25% profit.Chrisgr31 said:
I'd guess it is part of a covenant on the land, or part of the conditions of sale, for the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread. The vendor doesnt want to sell at say 75% without the tie, only to see the tie removed next year the new owner instantly make a 25% profit.
Could well be: given the age of the property (1970's by the look of it), that sounds more likely than it being intrinsic to the Planning condition itself.I've checked online; somebody unsuccessfully tried to remove the agricultural tie back in 1987, but the documentation isn't available online that far back, so I can't tell what the actual wording of the Planning condition was.
Edited by Equus on Saturday 31st March 20:26
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff