25 replies to this topic

[Cornish Gems]

Dave,

I have to agree with the previous post (Pumpkineater). There seems to have been a shift in your stance on what is acceptabe income. You can either have income from other sources or you can't.

It appears that the message you are giving is unclear, as you have appeared to move from one side to the other and backagain, seesawing from side to side. I do realise how difficult it is to interperate how planners react as as councils differ.

If you are trying to prove the viablility of the holding then it is monies derrived from the holding that counts. Having read many Planning Permissions over the years where people have tried to get the right to build their own home on their land. the acid test has been the financial viability of the holding. And in 99% of the successful cases income has been wholly derrived from that holding. No added income from fencing, hedging etc.

It would be great if we could add 20% to the income froom outside as I for one would be able to use my earned income from share and pensions.

But I doubt that any planner would allow such a thing they see the picture of the holding and not what is outside that boundary, they will only accept the income derrived from said holding, and no t from other outside sources.

Phill

[che]

is minimum wage the national standard or the agricultural min wage? if agricultural, what level?

It would appear these two figures are factual and probably deserve a pinned topic where they could be updated appropriately.
The other figures created by planners could also be added together with replies to letters asking there justification for including this in planning decisions. Variations will discredit these figures and strengthen our submissions. Although I am no lawyer I do have considerable experience dealing with legal matters. My training was based on the fact that a good case preparation was 99% perspiration & 1% inspiration. This site will provide many snippets that will be of use but no one can give cast iron guarantees as to how others will interpret your case.

[pigman]

The Crux is "Sustainability"

If you are granted permission to build an "Agri Tied Dwelling" will the unit finacially support itself and any subsequent ocupiers if they were to buy it from you by way of its own produce with regards a mortgauge.

Of course we know that after you have built you can contract outside for income (working in or last working in agriculture)

But for the meantime and planning purposes a bench marked as been decided upon in that you have to prove the farm is sustainable or has every practical chance of being so - so outside income aside from that gleaned from the holding itself will normaly only be considered - funds gained from farm diversifications and added value will be taken into acount if they derive from your farm produce - and those brought in, in the case of a farm shop up to a maximum of 20% out side produce - sold from the farm gate etc - and more for a farm shop within a farm shop premises that has come to being and been constructed through planning/development aproval through a farm diversification planning application with biz rates payable.

Basically the planners will not want to give you permission this week and next week you say the farm can not sustain itself as they are bound to consider lifting the agri tie if you can prove that....

[treebloke]

Hi
Perhaps i should clarify the point of working off site, Income from working away from your land can be used toward your total income but it is a matter of scale. if a proportion of your earnings were derived in this way say no more than say 20% then this would be permissable so long as the work you were carrying out was agricultural.

Regards Dave

20% appears perfectly logical and feasable to me. If my neighbouring farm asked me to bale his field of hay with my tractor and baler this is an agricultural activity and therefore should surely count towards your viability test. If he asked me to fell a tree in his garden then thats a different scenario.

[Groundhog]

I am still confused.
On 29/4/10 it was stated, 'You will need to prove that the holding is viable.....The total income from the holding is the figure you will be putting in from all of the enterprises, not just the main animal business.'
On 22/3/10, 'The income that is taken into consideration is from the holding regardless if there is one or more working on it.'
Then, ' Posted 01 February 2010 - 01:21 AM
Hi, I think that the planners would only be interested in what the income from the smallholding was. You could have a married couple where the husband worked full time on the farm and the wife, the main earner, helped at weekends. The fact that her salary was greater than the income from the farm should have no significance. But then what do I know.'
and at the same day, 2:40pm, 'The financial test is based purely on the smallholding in question and does not consider any other aspect of the applicants other incomes or financial means.'
Dave/Steve - you may be right and perhaps you have recently found some new planning permissions that support this idea of working as a self-employed person doing 'agricultural/horticultural work' to produce 20% of the necessary 'income' from the holding .
With my previous experience of planners in England I am not prepared to take the risk here in Scotland. I stand by what I said. I will follow the guidelines of THE book and use what I have learnt from threads on this forum and hopefully will make my dream come true. With many, many thanks for showing me the way. Rita

So
I havent missed the point then ! I am correct that working in agriculture in the locality will contribute to the viability