Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

97 replies

DoggyDay1 · 17/06/2017 14:58

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.

OP posts:
wondering23 · 17/06/2017 20:11

Horticulture/market gardening isn't the same as agriculture/farming though? I don't think claiming you have a successful horticultural business entitles you to an agricultural dwelling.

Sadik · 17/06/2017 20:14

I think this chart is very telling - compare horticulture units where on average around £15 k p/a comes from agriculture (horticulture = agriculture for DEFRA & planning purposes) and subsidy payments are negligible, whereas for 'all units' income from agriculture is under £10k p/a, with over £20k p/a per unit from Pillar 1 payments.

To be frustrated that we can't live on our own land....
Sadik · 17/06/2017 20:14

Sorry, cross post. Horticulture is absolutely agriculture for subsidy, planning and all other purposes. We still feed people!!!

GloriaGilbert · 17/06/2017 20:17

I have quite a lot of empathy for the OP's position, and wish that humans had not reproduced so recklessly that the dream of an actual homestead is just that.

wondering23 · 17/06/2017 20:24

Sorry I didn't word that very well at all, I seem to have missed a chunk out.

What I was trying to get across was that I wouldn't have thought 28 acres, no matter how it is farmed, would be sufficient enough to require a worker to live on site. The total turnover in the OP's case is £14k, so there is a fair way to go until the profit can support a full time employee.

Your business sounds really effective though Sadik, and your point about subsidy reliance is definitely interesting (but another thread on its own!).

Sadik · 17/06/2017 20:27

More seriously, the main issue with horticulture if looking to demonstrate need in the planning system is showing why you need to be on site and can't manage the holding whilst living elsewhere. With the OPD system that isn't relevant (of course you need to fulfil the environmental criteria, and be able to show economic sustainability).

There's much more precedent in the planning system for showing functional need in relation to animal care. However, building a certain amount of livestock into a vegetable enterprise is actually very useful from the pov of land management as well as (as noted by dd) bringing in customers to a farm shop or box scheme, even if it isn't strictly profitable if looked at standalone.

Depending on where you are in the country, knowledge of horticulture enterprises can also be really lacking in planning departments. You can argue in an application if you feel appropriate that the council needs to seek outside expertise. In too many cases, the planners do have that mindset that you can't make an income from 500 acres, so how can it conceivably be possible from 20. (Whereas actually, it's quite probably easier on 20 with the right business!)

Another big issue can be the chicken-and-egg situation - if your business isn't up and running, how do you demonstrate it's viable. But if it is running successfully, you clearly don't need to live on site! There are ways to get around that by demonstrating sustainability issues - ie something may be do-able short term, but for the business to be sustainable and grow long term a presence on site is required.

Sadik · 17/06/2017 20:32

I should say having posted all this that I don't live on site! I actually find it better for my mental health and family live to be away because I can take time off (for eg it is a lovely sunny evening here and I have my feet up in the sunshine MNing and chatting to dd and am not footling in the tunnels) whereas before we got our own land & we rented a place with accommodation I would for sure have been working. OP be warned . . . .

wondering23 · 17/06/2017 20:43

Sorry, we've sidetracked....

Getting back to the original question - we know now the main income from the holding is logs, fencing, gates and garden furniture. OP, very simple terms, the argument is why do you need to live on site to carry on chopping logs, making fences, gates and garden furniture? Why can't you carry on doing it living in an existing dwelling nearby?

That's what you will have to prove to the planners.

Sadik · 17/06/2017 20:51

Agreed - at the moment in England you do have to demonstrate functional need. I'd say on 23 acres with the right business that is achievable though difficult but sadly not probably not with a wood based business. (Having said that Ben Law's is woods based, and I can think of a few others who've managed to show functional need for woodland enterprises, but they're very specific.)

libra101 · 18/06/2017 18:11

When my brother was getting married several years ago, he obtained planning permission to build a home on my parents' land, due to the fact that he had a horticultural business, growing tomatoes, salads, etc. As the land was being used for an agricultural business, as long as certain concessions were made there didn't seem to be a problem.

Later they were allowed to convert a barn into a house.

With government/council emphasis on home building, I'm surprised the council are being so unhelpful. Is it worth contacting your local MP and asking for his/her help?

pollymere · 18/06/2017 18:46

We can't have a coffee shop or kiosk in our local park for the same reason. There has to be no end of inquiries to build on green belt and developers can't ignore those rules either.

milliemolliemou · 18/06/2017 20:08

You can go the "cheat way" as 2 people near us did. They just put up a static on the 10 acres they'd bought at agricultural values and argued they needed to be there to look after the quails and goats. Their first application was turned down by the council. Then they got an advisor who knew the area and had advised travellers doing the same thing. Lo and behold, they were given permission to stay in the static because the local authority had missed deadlines and the planning inspector on appeal granted them leave to stay in the static for 3 years providing they could prove a viable business at the end of that time.

You sound as if you aren't one of the cheats, OP. I would seriously research all the help you can get online and speak to the council officers about your plans and ask their advice. I don't know where you live but most LG officers are helpful if approached in the right way. If you have a financial plan about how your acreage will earn you enough to live on that would help. Needing to nurse herbs/lsalads/livestock would be enough. Good luck

Shockers · 18/06/2017 20:19

The green belt land around us is being built on at an alarming rate. It's all by developers such as Barratt and it comes in the form of estates.

The land is therefore no longer agricultural. It's supposed to be affordable housing, but the majority of the houses are detached 3/4 beds, 2 baths, starting at approx £300,000.

But our council is bent.

Foxylass · 18/06/2017 21:14

Look into 'local needs' planning applications.

Nananap · 18/06/2017 21:45

Foxy I've tried with local needs and was told it doesn't exist by my planning.
It's bull shit it really is.
Op good luck, I've looked and looked but can't seem to find a way to make it work. Yet the council are busy selling off greenbelt, cramming in houses with no green bits left.

SomeKindOfGenius · 18/06/2017 21:51

Our neighbour managed to get permission for a bungalow because he has a rare breed native horse and wished to breed her.
She is completely unhandled, has never been near a stallion and barely looks like the breed she is supposed to represent but it got him a house!

Molly499 · 19/06/2017 12:02

I would google 'modular housing UK' and have a look at some of the products available. Most of these can be considered to be temporary structures because they can be moved around by a crane. If you only live in it for 9 months you don't need planning.

Foxylass · 19/06/2017 20:01

In a National park near me, established residents struggle to get permission to alter their places but a 'non-local' got permission for a new-build because of local needs (delivery driver in the neighbouring parish!!!)

7461Mary18 · 19/06/2017 20:06

Indeed. That is why a lot of those mobile home parks work but residents must not live there for at least a month a year.

Nananap · 20/06/2017 09:32

foxy Id love to hear how he managed it.
I tried, honestly a big list of local needs (local employer, volunteer etc etc) and got told that there are no exceptions to the planning. Having read the legislation myself it seems a bit of a grey area, they can look at local needs if they feel all other development , so infill etc has been utilised. For the OP it doesnt make any sense, someone farming the greenbelt and tending to it who needs one small home to enable them to do that is not going to cause any issue to the ecology. Cramming 200 houses onto that site will. Leaving it to become completely unkept will also cause issues.

CloudPerson · 20/06/2017 09:52

The legal definition of agriculture is as follows:

"Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines ‘agriculture' as including:
‘horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming;
the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land);
the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens or nursery grounds; and
the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes.’"

It technically doesn't matter if this is for personal use or a business, if this is how the land is used and there is an income (even self sufficiency) it is classed as agricultural, although some councils will create grey areas and deny this.

Someone mentioned Chapter 7, I rang them last year about a similar issue, but on a much smaller scale, and they were very helpful, but I think they were stopping the helpline.

There used to be a rule that certain livestock kept on a plot more than 6 acres helps to get planning permission, even if it's temporary, under the caravan act, and it may be easier to get planning for a log cabin whose dimensions come under the caravan act, so that might be worth looking into. IIRC pigs and alpacas were among the livestock that can help, as you need to be on site more. This might have changed though.

Hiring a land barrister (may be a different wording, but basically a barrister who knows the laws surrounding planning and agriculture inside out) can be helpful, as any council created issues (which they are VERY good at doing!) can be overturned immediately. It can be costly, but cheaper in the long run.

NettleTea · 20/06/2017 09:59

yes, pigs are a good one as they dont have a breeding season, so you cannot say 'well you can just live there in Spring'

also forestry is its own category, but notoriously difficult to get permission for - they like you building in woodland even less than they like you building on agricultural land! Ben Law was extremely lucky (and having known people who have worked for him, extremely canny too) and his home is entirely bound to his work - legally if he retires, the whole thing will need to be torn down and he cannot sell it.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread