Rent on Agricultural Tie House

[Lorenz]

Seen a property come up for rent today, wasn't looking, it popped up on facebook. It was for sale some months back and I do not know if it has actually sold, it still is not showing up.

But my question is, if the place can only be sold to someone in agriculture, I would have thought it would only be allowed to be rented to someone in ag, if this is right, then they should let people buy the house and rent the land to a farmer surely?

[IanR]

4 minutes ago, Lorenz said:

I would have thought it would only be allowed to be rented to someone in ag, if this is right, 

 

Yep, but depends on exact wording of condition as to who in agricultural (or forestry) can live in the house.

[Lorenz]

3 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

Yep, but depends on exact wording of condition as to who in agricultural (or forestry) can live in the house.

It is up at £1750 a month and does not mention the Tie, but doubt any agricultural worker would pay that anyway.

[Temp]

This is what they are doing.. 

 

https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/planning-and-compulsory-purchase/update-on-agricultural-occupancy-conditions/

 

MARKET TESTING

 

It is possible to remove an agricultural occupancy condition though the applicant will first need to demonstrate certain things. This includes adducing evidence that the property has been marketed for sale or rent, at a substantially reduced price, to agricultural workers in the area for a significant period of time.

 

In April 2019 the Planning Inspectorate emphasised that evidence of a robust marketing exercise is essential when applying to remove a condition. This related to an application to remove an agricultural occupancy condition at Sutton Springs Trout Fishery Grounds. The Inspector found that there had been sufficient marketing of the property as it had been consistently publicised online, included in various publications and promoted in mail campaigns. The agricultural occupancy condition was therefore successfully removed.

 

This decision is illustrative of what level of marketing is acceptable and adds to the tips provided by the Upper Tribunal in the case of Rasbridge, Re Cefn Betingau Farm in 2012. The Tribunal found the applicants' market testing exercise was not sufficiently rigorous and suggested that the applicant should have: 

• offered to rent the property in order to establish if there was rental value to the land;
• advertised the property in the specialist farming press; and
• made adjustments to reflect general market movements.

[Lorenz]

Trying I guess, it was not up for sale at a reduced price and the rent they are asking is at the higher level. We rent in the next village and have a larger house and pay substantially less.

Most agricultural tie properties I see, are usually in a very bad condition and would be cheaper than local houses anyway? This one is in good condition, was up for sale at a high price and is now up for rent at a high price and does not mention that renters need to be involved in ag. Seems to me this is just a method of keeping small properties in the hands of local farmers? Larger farmhouses with lots of land, do not have agricultural ties, does not make sense to me.

[IanR]

Agricultural occupancy conditions only really started to appear in the 70's, from what I understand, so older farmhouses and farm workers' cottages that haven't undergone significant changes since then won't have the conditions attached, but some do.

 

 

[Lorenz]

32 minutes ago, IanR said:

Agricultural occupancy conditions only really started to appear in the 70's, from what I understand, so older farmhouses and farm workers' cottages that haven't undergone significant changes since then won't have the conditions attached, but some do.

 

 

This property does but the buildings are old, we looked but it was nearly 2 million..... agricultural tie. Does not make sense to me and seems just wrong.