To be frustrated that we can't live on our own land....

[DoggyDay1]

Simply that, very much first world problem of course, but getting planning permission to live in any type of dwelling on our land is just ridiculous, yet all around us housing developers seem to sweep aside all the rules and do as they please. We farm the land, live self suffienctly off it, we're up there all the time and back and forth twice a day every day to see to animals, but not allowed to build there. I keep looking at different options but unless we plough 1000s in on a high risk of no success we've little hope. Basic message was if we were richer we could buy ourselves round the rules but as we're a normal family, who just happen to try and live in an environmentally friendly way, we've little hope.

It is not true that we have a corrupt planning system and people buy their way round it. The only people who seem to get away with breaching planning law seems to be travellers and even then after 8 years the buildings they put on their land without permission tend to be pulled down.

That is why there is such a difference between land with planning permission and that without. If developers could just pay a bribe then instead there would not be that big difference in land prices depending on if permission is possible to obtain or not.

Wondering23 has written excellent posts.

It's not corruption, it's about the money to buy legal advice, to pursue appeals etc. Back in the day my DM used to work for an agricultural college, on one occasion they were trying to get planning permission for something and the council were being very negative at pre-app stage. Their planning consultant basically told them to tell the council with 100% conviction that if they were refused they'd take it all the way to the high court - council backed down because they knew they couldn't carry the legal costs of fighting all the way through the system, and hence they might as well pass it early on.

7461Mary 18
I was advised that the biggest breachers of planning laws were the supermarkets, who would exceed the planning consents to build bigger than allowed. See www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-riding-roughshod-over-planning-rules-mps-are-told-518601.html

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/in-your-area/anger-tesco-attempts-overturn-punishment-7977603

Councils don't always back down at the threat of appeal. It really does depend on the case. There are cases where it goes as far as the Court of Appeal and planning still isn't granted.
Of course, unless you are actively involved in property, building, planning, you won't be aware of the many sites that even large developers walk away from.
It's not impossible to achieve consent for change of use but you have to be very sensitive to the needs of the wider community, the local plan and any restrictions.

It's not corruption, it's about the money to buy legal advice, to pursue appeals etc.
That's what I meant too.
Simple fact of resources and power.

I think a lot of planning, legal, workplace, family courts etc are much easier to navigate when you have the money for advice and guidance (and yes, probably a bit of influence).

No, I'm sure they don't Gwen - but being able to pay for a planning consultant who has that kind of knowledge doesn't come cheap.

TBH, I think the answer is you either need serious money - most obviously if you're going to go for a Paragraph 55 dwelling (aka the 'country house' clause), or very very serious commitment (Ben Law's Woodland house is another example).

Just in case anyone wishes to build a country house (or indeed doubts that there is indeed another law for the properly rich), here's an excerpt from what I believe was originally known as 'Gummer's Law'

"An isolated new house in the countryside may also exceptionally be justified if it is clearly of the highest quality, is truly outstanding in terms of its architecture and landscape design, and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings. Proposals for such development would need to demonstrate that proper account had been taken of the defining characteristics of the local area, including local or regional building traditions and materials. This means that each generation would have the opportunity to add to the tradition of the Country House which has done so much to enhance the English countryside."

We have had applications, many millions of pounds, turned down locally, including those going as far as the COurt of Appeal. our local council does resist them.

I agree that very occasionalyl permission is given for an outstanding new massive country house in the right place but it is not particularly common.

I think most of do not want people who buy farmland to have the right to change the use actually. The planning laws protect us all.

28 acres is not a commercial unit.

Soery but i dont think your a 'normal family' if you own land

What the fucking hell is "normal" 😂 FWIW I live and work in the agricultural sector and I don't know many people who don't own land - just to balance your ridiculous statement.

YABU - there would be no fields left if this was allowed.In the past lots of people have bought a field and tried to start some sort of venture on it , built a big house on it and the stopped the farming .Planners are very very wise to this old trick.

I think context is all, Mary. I was present at an OPD appeal back in 2013 and an elderly local farmer spoke incredibly movingly in favour of the applicants.

He described the countryside in this area in his childhood - a patchwork of small mixed farms, with a thriving community earning a decent living from the land.

That doesn't exist any more. In the last 20 years, when a smallholding or small farm sells, odds on the house will be sold either as a 2nd home, or to retirees, and the land stripped off and amalgamated with a larger farm.

The critical point to note is that these big farms don't make money. They are only economically viable because of subsidy payments.

At the same time, there is a substantial and currently un-fulfilled demand for locally grown organic or quasi-organic (ie not necessarily certified) vegetables, herbs etc from the local tourist trade. You can - and people do - make a living on a small acreage. But of course, these smallholdings don't exist any more, because it pays much better to sell the houses to people who've just sold in London, and the CAP props up the unprofitable sheep farming businesses.

The planning system has been failing to support food security in this country for years, and a proper overhaul is desperately needed.

User149, my family have been farming here for over 100 years, we've solely run it for 15, we inherited it a few years back and due to changes in what we farm we'd like to live there, we're very happy to have a tie on it or anything else, we live completely off our land in an entirely self suffiecient manner - we rear our meat, grow our fruit and veg, use the wood for fuel, etc, we simply would like to live there to continue this... I understand why laws are there but I resent the implication of 'this old trick'.

Its all relative i suppose, most normal families i know live in rented, social, ex local authority housing or a house with a small garden, land i would think of as a decent amount of space. No offence meant just where i grew up if you owned land you were well posh

"28 acres is not a commercial unit."

We have 6 acres, it supports 3.5 FTE jobs (at £12/hour). I'd call that reasonably commercial. And that's with zero subsidy payments.

Yes, on a small acreage you have to be niche, and you have to be smart. But it's totally possible.

Ps we sell all that we over produce (meat, veg and fruits) locally, and supply local people with logs, fencing, gates, garden furniture etc. We haven't maximised the land as yet and could make more, but profit has never been our motivator, lifestyle and living in a self sufficient way has been.

Sadik I'd really welcome more advice on what you do.

Sadik the op has already stated it is traditional agriculture therefore I stand by my original statement - 28 acres is not a commercial unit and I doubt it would stand up to the principle livelihood test. If you are employing 3 people on six acres it's quite obviously not traditional agriculture unless it's under chicken sheds!

Frilly, I do believe we could almost double the income if Dh worked on it full time.

DoggyDay1 can I ask what you would be doing on 28 acres that would derive a full income?

We (husband and I) farm just shy of 3,000 acres arable in a cereal, OSR and beet rotation and employ two men.

Majority of the income is from the woodland (about 2/3s of land) - logs, fencing, bespoke gates and garden furniture, we also have sheep, goats, chickens, bees and pigs (but all small scale) we rent some additional land for the sheep.

I think the key phrase is self-sufficient. You aren't running a business, you are living the good life and it would be handier/nicer for you if you lived there. That isn't a good enough reason to make an exception to general planning policy.

The principle of the ag tie dwelling is to support an income. It's along the same lines as a live-work unit. You have to be able to show that you need to live there to generate an income for yourself.

If you think you can maximise the land to create a proper income there then go for it - but you'll have to be able to prove it's viable before you get your planning.

Would definitely like to here more about Sadik's business. This isn't sarcastic - my Dad and brother struggle to make a decent profit on out 500+ acre farm with subsidies, so I'm genuinely interested to know.

I didn't mean to imply that you're one of the 'this old trick again' types and that you're trying to get one over on the system, I was just trying to explain why it isn't as easy as perhaps you think it should be.

Try to looking at it like this - an ag tie dwelling is an exception to planning policy, not a given just because you farm a few acres. You need to be able to prove that it is very difficult for you to sustain your livelihood without living on site to persuade the planners to make an exception to planning policy for you. Sure there are people who manage to do this without being entirely he genuine and therefore use this as a loophole, but I personally don't think your case has enough credit (from what you've told us).

Really sorry to sound so negative, I just don't want you to spend loads of cash on professional fees and planning applications because I can't see this going anywhere.

DD (15) is howling with laughter at this thread. She says (imagine full on teenage sarcastic voice) TWENTY EIGHT ACRES!!! More helpfully she then says she would go for salad & flower bags, specialist herbs and novel crops to restaurants, consider a veg box scheme or CSA especially given there's the space for field crops, and then adding in chickens for meat and eggs (to improve the land and bring in customers), plus an apiary (again to bring in customers, plus potentially the option for added value products).

wondering - I'm a specialist horticulture business. But seriously, I have (unsurprisingly) many grower friends, and it is still quite possible in this day and age to make an acceptable living out of market gardening providing you're creative.

Obviously it does depend on where you're located - but then having said that I know one CSA that went from zero to 90 boxes a week in two years on the outskirts of Swansea (15 acre site, 4 acres intensive veg) and is turning customers away. Swansea is so not the place you'd expect that, but it's an unserved market, and there are customers out there who want local organic veg.

The OP isn't doing that though. She is keeping small scale livestock and the main source of the income is from logs, gates and garden furniture, which isn't agriculture.