33 replies to this topic

[Neil Smith]

hi all, i am after some land near to where i live to use as a small holding to live on,dose anyone know how far away it has to be from my present home to make it not viable to travel every day to tend to animals. cheers Neil.

[Groundhog]

Neil please expand dont quite understand

[shepie]

Hi neil
As far as i am aware there is no set distance , it just states that if there is no house localy for sale or let that can serve the purpose then you may be able to build , so i would say if you live close by it comes down to you having a business that requires you to be on site 24/7 and no where else.

[Neil Smith]

thanks for that,only someone told me if you live within 3 miles the planners would say you are near enough to go back and forth to tend your animals without actually living on the land.cheers Neil

[surreydodger]

Hi Neil,

Yes, planners do come up with the point that if you live close by, then you may be close enough not to need to live on site. However, if you are wanting to build on your land and have sold your house, then I do not see how they can make that argument. Especially if you have sold your house to help fund your farm.

[happymanoftheworld]

Rent out house and move on to the site! Remember that if at the beginning you go backwards and forwards to house the planners will say that you coped, and therefore you can continue travelling!!!

[Wiseowl]

The relevant functional test is whether residency on site is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise (my underlining). If you had a livestock enterprise, for example, of an extent and type whereby the animals required essential care at short notice for its proper functioning, that argument should not be negated just because you may have been able to operate it to a degree (but to a less than proper standard) by travelling back and forth from your present/previous home.

If a functional need is established in principle, you then need to show there is no other accommodation in the area that is "suitable and available".

With due respect to HMOTW, as explained elsewhere I would not tend to advise anyone to move onto a site first, so starting off the inevitable fight from day 1, nor do I think you would get far by claiming a house you owned was rented out and so not "available". What you would need to show is that it would not be suitable. For example, explaining a need to live within sight and sound of the animals so as to give them proper care at short notice, would be a more convincing appoach, in my view.

[surreydodger]

Hi Wiseowl,

I can understand that to just rent out ones home and then not allude to owning such house might be considered untruthful or possibly even devious but other than flatly denying ownership, I can not see any illegality going on.

If it were I, then maybe the correct route would be to rent out my house on an assured tenancy, thus giving rent renewal rights to the tenant. This would mean that the tenant has the right to renew the lease pretty much as they choose and effectively make it impossible to return to my house, or in other words, it is not a home that could be considered as an available residency.

This would leave the applicant in this case, with no alternative residency providing no other suitable dwelling is on the market nearby. It has been discussed before, that in most cases, a nearby house that may be available can be shown to be to expensive and that anything for rent is 99.9% of the time on a shorthold tenancy and thus, can not be relied upon to give a gauranteed residency for the indefintie future (thus jeopardising the agricultural holding).

of course, other conditions as you point apply such as the functional need to be on site.

[Groundhog]

Remember reading an application for gatcombe house where there was accomodation but rented out,they ruled that the tenant can be given notice,even on a short term assured agreement notice can still be given after 6 months,think its the available bit ie within the holding or owned by the applicant they highlight.That was on full planning I think for an agric workers dwelling

[Groundhog]

If I were to move on first with functional need ie animals that need welfare,if you are indeed a planning official would you not look at the case in a different light as opposed to looking at a proposal and muttering"Another One Trying It On" and poping it in the rejected tray An honest reply would be nice !

[surreydodger]

Hi Groundhog,

Yes, on a shorthold tenancy, you can give a notice to remove the tenant after six months. However, on an assured tenancy,, which are as rare as chickens teeth in these days, the tenant has the right to renew the lease so long as they wish under the 1954 Tenant Act (I might be a bit rusty on that as I never really specialised in residential tenant law).

[Cornish Gems]

hi all, i am after some land near to where i live to use as a small holding to live on, does anyone know how far away it has to be from my present home to make it not viable to travel every day to tend to animals. cheers Neil.

We have to admit that we are intrigued by the phrase, 'make it not viable to travel every day to tend to animals'. What do you mean by this and from whose point of view? With certain animals, one could live quite a long way away from them if one had enough income to cover travel costs and enough spare time to do the travelling. If you have a large enough income, then the distance would be what was viable from your point of view. Some people have been known to travel many miles in order to tend their livestock - especially in the case of sheep and cattle which can be left for hours each day except at lambing or calving times.

From the other words included in your question, we assume that the land is bare and does not already have any kind of planning permission granted, nor some kind of 'dwelling' already on the land. Similarly, we assume that it is not being sold as a going concern of an already established business. Therefore, as we understand it, no-one is permitted to live on that kind of bare land without some sort of permission. One of these, under certain conditions, is outlined in Dave's book; another is under the regulation which allows you to spend 28 days and nights on your land per year for the purpose of looking after livestock, etc., and this could be useful for lambing or calving periods, but what would you do once the 28 days were up?

Other than that, you will need to apply for planning permission. If you have a viable agricultural business proposition, then the council might grant you permission to live in a temporary mobile home and during the period granted you will need to be able to pass, the proper financial and functional tests should you wish to have any hope of turning the temporary permission into full planning permission. You might have a better chance of gaining permission for a temporary mobile home (we suggest you ask for 3 years as it seems to be the most common one granted), if you start farming the land first and then when you make your application, ensure that you also have something on your land that needs your personal attendance at any time of the day or night, week, month or year.

In your shoes, we would most certainly not consider trying to apply for full planning permission; nor would we consider following the route laid out in Dave's book as we would be too fearful that the council would be up in arms. This is one of the reasons why we purchased land which is 1½hours drive away from the house which we have now put on the market.

[che]

Hi Groundhog not familiar with Gatcombe case, was the house that was rented part of the farm for which the application was made?

Dave C

[Groundhog]

Cant remember either Gatcombe Park or house,think they had houses that were being rented out as offices on the estate,

[che]

Can understand why they would not be too happy particularly if tenants not engaged in agriculture.

Cheers for that

[Wiseowl]

I don't think non-disclosure would be illegal, but in presenting a case for new accommodation the issue of where you lived before is pretty likely to come up anyway.

As for any long-term arrangement to let out the property, yes that could amount to non-availability, but then of course the disadvantage is that it becomes non-available to you, should you ever wish/need to go back, and it will affect value for any future sale to raise further funds.

[Wiseowl]

If I were to move on first with functional need ie animals that need welfare,if you are indeed a planning official would you not look at the case in a different light as oppossed to looking at a proposal and muttering"Another One Trying It On" and poping it in the rejected tray An honest reply would be nice !

Personally if I were "indeed a planning official" I would hope to allow fairly for the circumstances as you suggest, because the fact that development has already taken place, is not in itself a valid reason for refusing it. It is more a question of perception, I suppose, and the best way to start off on the right foot.

[che]

And there lies the problem"perception". My other dealings with planners related to my need for a "Granny Annexe for an elderly relative. The only concern seemed to be making sure the the property could not be subdived and sold at a later date. If I had known my way round the planning system this person would have spent their final years in much better conditions. I know now if I had gone to a consultant they would have presented better solutions but I nievley went to the council whom I believed would help me to help an elderly relative. There advice amounted to what they wanted rather than what we needed.
I suspect Groundhog is not far from the truth and the application would join the No pile

I started on the right foot and ended on it. It did me no good they played on my ignorance.

Of late I have purchased 9acres and have livestock that could meet the functional need and we are engaged in a form of diversification that is in a recognised farm management manual. This business has already generated income in excess of the viability requirement add the major building and engineering works being undertaken. My Perception is that pretty much covers the bases for a shot at AWD. Planners Perception Diy projects combined with childcare not even a mention of the animals.

Think I know what I should be doing with my FOOT

[happymanoftheworld]

Hi Wiseowl - There was a case appealed in Scotland which was lost - the reason being that the person had managed to "work" the business for a year and the animals had survived. I read it quite a while back - hence my method.

I can say that not one planner nor indeed my appeal inspector asked where I had lived before the caravan. It follows that I have not lied to them...... if I am not asked I won't volunteer.

Regards Shorthold --- yes, mine is rented in 6 month renewable periods --- if there is a problem with the tenants it is easir to remove them ----- I am sure that the other method of leasing means that once the tenant has been there a certain length of time that they are more or less guaranteed residence.

My house has been rented now for 6 years and has kept me going because no outlay for caravan (except initial cost six years ago --- £1,200 INCLUDING delivery!!!)

I still stand by my original suggestion.

[surreydodger]

Okay,, I'll throw in the key on how to rent on assured tenancy (the one where you can not get a tenant out easily) and it is quite simple, rent it to someone who would leave if you asked them too.