Add Your Idea

Get rid of agricultural tie restrictions on dwellings

9 Comments 25th October 2014

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Why does this matter?

This draconian and out of date law needs revisited.  In the present economic climate dwellers in ag tie restricted properties are under considerable pressure.  The threat from enforcement due to non fulfillment of the terms of the ag tie should be removed. 

I beleive that this impinges on human rights.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

Highlighted posts


9 Responses to Get rid of agricultural tie restrictions on dwellings

  1. John Vaughan says:

    I agree

  2. Charlotte says:

    Agreed! These laws are ridiculous!

  3. Dawna says:

    Hi, on what basis would you fight it? D.

  4. JohnR says:

    This is an old and defunct law based upon much higher agricultural employment levels than there will ever be again, due to farm mechanisation and new technology.

  5. mill says:

    we want to buy a property but, might be able to bid for it, as not employed in farming directly! The old lady has not farmed anything for 30 years! Crazy.

  6. Christine says:

    It’s a good idea in that it restricts the problem of ribbon development in the countryside, however, if the eligibility also restricts, widows, divorcees or people who possessed a Holding some years previously, then it’s a bad idea.

  7. Respect for the Earth and the goodness of life we gain from living gentle on the land is a necessity for our health and wellbeing. Life and wealth do not need to be summed up by money but the health of our selves as individuals and as community or even a species. Growing good food and knowing where it comes from is a basic need. Lets show the children (and each other) the best way to live.

  8. Sumo Vincent says:

    I think the real issue is that we rely too much on food imports. The last time the British people had to go without food was during world war two rationing. This is why the protection of agricultural land was written into the planning system post war. We may be lucky enough to enjoy food imports from every corner of the world today but we shouldn’t assume this will always be the case. We should do everything we can to protect agricultural land. We shouldn’t sacrifice the ability of future British generations to feed themselves because people are frustrated by high housing costs.

  9. Steve says:

    I would extend the suggestion still farther to give all existing ag ties a term of validity of no more than 25 years. That would be more than sufficient period of agricultural usage to justify the original grant of planning permission to build the property. After that time the ag tie would expire and no longer be required, either by the original occupiers who may have long since retired anyway, or by any subsequent purchasers. This is surely far better than having ag tied properties sit unsold on the market for years, there are many such properties in my local area, some of which are now falling into a derelict state.
    As to fears of ribbon development eating up agricultural land, the Planning Authorities simply need to decline application s for unwarranted development on agricultural land, but not allow already existing properties to go to waste.

Leave a Reply to John Vaughan Cancel reply

Good idea? Bad idea? Let us know your thoughts.


Back to top
Add Your Idea