Roundhouse

[BDG]

(29 December 2012, 20:33)GrannyMike Wrote: you need planning for most things now if your going to live in it you will
i lived in a caravan/s here and it took 17years to win planning to live here legal
all the time i was building up my smallholding we now have a log cabin 14 x60 feet which is still classed as a caravan band a con tax but we won in the end
i love her roundhouse but think of all that mud this year and ok if your younger

No help to you but there was a case a couple of years ago where high court ruled that you did not have to prove a viable business on ag land to claim building entitlement under agricultural occupancy rules. As long as you can display subsistence agriculture - and the definition was broad here - it pretty much meant out of the family, one adult was working at agriculture on the land rather than having a full time job then conditions for agricultural occupancy were met.

This means that a couple could buy a bit of land, one could work offsite and as long as the other did the majority of their work on site in an agricultural capacity, then conditions were met to build a home. Most councils would still refuse PP unless you told them you knew about the case however.

It does mean however, that if you get yourself a couple of acres, breed some hens to sell and eggs, breed some rabbits to sell as meat and grow your own veg, by claiming Ag Oc because you need to be on hand to your stock 24 hours a day, you get PP.

[bigpaul]

that may be so in that one case but here in England the minimum criteria seems to be you must earn money from your land and it has to be at least the same amount as you would get on the dole, and that isnt possible with only a couple of acres.

[BDG]

(30 December 2012, 10:04)bigpaul Wrote: that may be so in that one case but here in England the minimum criteria seems to be you must earn money from your land and it has to be at least the same amount as you would get on the dole, and that isnt possible with only a couple of acres.

I am in England and you are incorrect.

As I stated, there was a test case - Petter and Harris v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and The Regions and Another Court of Appeal 15 March 1999 - where it was determined the rules should not be interpreted in the way that they are written and instead the intent of the rule should be applied.

It was judged that the rule regarding commercial viability was put in place to stop people building under conditions of agricultural occupancy and then winding up the agricultural business and selling the home(s) as residential dwellings.

It was also judged that the rule was written with thought given to commercial farming rather than subsistence farming and that in the case of subsistence farming, rather than the profitability rule be applied, instead the meaning behind the rule should be asked - is the agricultural activity likely to continue.

If the answer to that is yes, then all rules regarding how much an agricultural business does or does not make go out of the window. If a husband is running an agricultural business and has a dwelling related to conditions of agricultural occupancy, it could be the wife works elsewhere and uses her income to support the business. It matters not, as long as the land is being used for agriculture.

[bigpaul]

we have a friend in Somerset who lives in a straw bale house on 5 acres, she has gone to planning appeal after planning appeal and lost every time, she only got the right to remain on "human rights" grounds because she has MS.

[uks]

Having been looking into the planning laws you have to prove that the farm/smallholding can give you the farm labours minimum wage or that there is a very good reason that you have to live on site ie animals with young etc.
A another thing ive found out is that if you have 14 acres or more all you have to do is give notice to the planning dept that you intend to build ie farm building and not a house that they have 30 days to object otherwise after the 30 days you start building if no objections have been placed by the planning dept.

[BDG]

(30 December 2012, 10:45)bigpaul Wrote: we have a friend in Somerset who lives in a straw bale house on 5 acres, she has gone to planning appeal after planning appeal and lost every time, she only got the right to remain on "human rights" grounds because she has MS.

It may be that they judge that agriculture is unlikely to continue due to her MS or it may be that she needs to pay for better legal representation. If she is conducting agriculture on the land that requires a full time presence - and the husbandry of animals requires such a presence - and this agriculture is likely to continue - she has met the conditions laid out in Petter and Harris.

However, as she has MS, due to the nature of the condition, it is not unreasonable for her venture to be have to make a profit as during times her illness will mean she has to employ people. If she is not independently wealthy then the agricultural enterprise must produce enough to cover the times when she cannot work.

If she cannot show that someone can be employed to cover when she cannot work, it is not certain that agriculture can continue.

[uks]

(30 December 2012, 10:58)uks Wrote: Having been looking into the planning laws you have to prove that the farm/smallholding can give you the farm labours minimum wage or that there is a very good reason that you have to live on site ie animals with young etc.
A another thing ive found out is that if you have 14 acres or more all you have to do is give notice to the planning dept that you intend to build ie farm building and not a house that they have 30 days to object otherwise after the 30 days you start building if no objections have been placed by the planning dept.

This info was given to me by specialist consultants dealing with this type of planning application.

[bigpaul]

(30 December 2012, 11:00)BDG Wrote: It may be that they judge that agriculture is unlikely to continue due to her MS or it may be that she needs to pay for better legal representation. If she is conducting agriculture on the land that requires a full time presence - and the husbandry of animals requires such a presence - and this agriculture is likely to continue - she has met the conditions laid out in Petter and Harris.

However, as she has MS, due to the nature of the condition, it is not unreasonable for her venture to be have to make a profit as during times her illness will mean she has to employ people. If she is not independently wealthy then the agricultural enterprise must produce enough to cover the times when she cannot work.

If she cannot show that someone can be employed to cover when she cannot work, it is not certain that agriculture can continue.

she used special barristers who worked for free but even they couldnt win the case, she used the land for "educational" purposes which a lot of places use to get PP but the only criteria she could get her PP on was her human rights. similar set ups in Devon and Somerset only get temporary permission usually for 5 years in which time they have to prove they can make a go of it, if not then they are evicted.

[BDG]

(30 December 2012, 11:01)uks Wrote:

(30 December 2012, 10:58)uks Wrote: Having been looking into the planning laws you have to prove that the farm/smallholding can give you the farm labours minimum wage or that there is a very good reason that you have to live on site ie animals with young etc.

This info was given to me by specialist consultants dealing with this type of planning application.

They are telling you the law as it is written, not as it has been interpreted by the court of appeal. As long as you can show you need to live on site and that agriculture is likely to continue on site, the particular rule regarding the profitability of the venture goes out of the window as long as it is reasonable to epect there to be enough money to pay for the venture itself - eg tax, feed, vets bills etcetera. This money does not have to come from the business itself. It could be your own you have sitting in a bank, it could be a pension or it could be the income your spouse makes.

[bigpaul]

in general, most councils in Devon and Somerset EXPECT you to be able to earn a living from the land, any "external" wage is not classed as earning a living from the land and is ignored for planning purposes, if you cant earn a living from the land then your PP is denied, that seems to be how it works down here in principle.