clydesdaleclopper
|
Advice on planning pleaseWe have recently moved to a place with 6 acres of land. It was originally farmed then it was sold in 2005 to people who built a new house and when they got pp for the house they also had a change of use from agricultural to residential use. What are the implications of this? Do we need to get this changed to keep livestock on the land? We currently have 3 horses there and are going to get a couple of goats. I know I need to apply for a holding number but wasn't sure about the planning stuff. We are in Scotland if that makes any difference.
Thanks for reading
|
mechanicalmouse
|
Just a quick thanks for your post. I'd not heard of a holding Number until then.
I guessing you'll have to have the land re-purposed in order to be eligible for agricultural Grants.
|
sean
|
I've got no idea about the planning stuff but welcome aboard anyway. Someone more useful is bound to be along soon. 
|
beean
|
Sounds like the new build house was given permission on the basis that it was needed for an agricultural worker. Otherwise they wouldn't have been given planning to build on green-belt ("designated agricultural" land). They would then have got a consultant in to lift the clause, thereby making the house worth more before they sold it. With an agri-clause typically the main household income has to come from the land which the house is tied to. So the house and land would be worth much more if anyone can live there and commute to work instead.
Alternatively they got the agricultural designation of the land lifted so they could use it as a garden (also, gardens count as "brownfield" so can be developed for housing more easily).
This doesn't mean that you can't live there and farm the land keep livestock. Unless there is something spearate which prevents the keeping of livestock on that particular bit of land (which is unlikely - but check deeds). Horses no longer cound as agricultural, they're "lesiure" now.
|
resistance is fertile
|
Hi and welcome
There are potentially many ways in which planning could have been achieved, you would have to find that out if you wished, by looking at the original application. One of those may have been as an agricultural workers dwelling, but this would have usually been tied to the holding and have an occupational condition.
As a note this occupational condition is not so much about 'main household income' from agriculture but that thiose living there must be mainly employed in agriculture. You can earn as much as you like outside agriculture as long as most of your time is spent on farming.
Its quite normal that your land designation would have changed, as indeed it would need to given the material change of use. Keeping horses and some other domestic livestock should not be a problem./ though
|
clydesdaleclopper
|
It certainly wasn't built for an agricultural worker. The new house is a replacement for the old croft house that had been empty for 50 years. They knocked down the old steadings to build this one.
|
resistance is fertile
|
| clydesdaleclopper wrote: | | It certainly wasn't built for an agricultural worker. The new house is a replacement for the old croft house that had been empty for 50 years. They knocked down the old steadings to build this one. |
Exactly, demolition and replacement is a common, and easier route development strategy in open countryside or Green Belt.
|
clydesdaleclopper
|
Will it affect my ability to get grants though? I was hoping to apply under the SRDP for hedging.
|
resistance is fertile
|
that would probably depend on if there is a minimum holding size stipulation.
|
Dr Rob
|
The residential planning permission would have been for the house and 'curtilage' (eg domestic outbuildings, yard, garden). This will not affect in any way your ability to keep livestock on the remainder of the land. If, on the other hand, you later wanted to use part of the agricultural land to extend the garden, you would need planning consent for change of use (many don't bother, though - including me 20 years ago - and get away with it).
|
Dr Rob
|
The situation will be the same in Scotland, I'm sure
|
resistance is fertile
|
| Dr Rob wrote: | | The residential planning permission would have been for the house and 'curtilage' (eg domestic outbuildings, yard, garden). This will not affect in any way your ability to keep livestock on the remainder of the land. If, on the other hand, you later wanted to use part of the agricultural land to extend the garden, you would need planning consent for change of use (many don't bother, though - including me 20 years ago - and get away with it). |
Quite right.
One of the benefits of looking in to a bit of Permaculture is that it beautifully blurs the line between agriculture and gardening, even from the planning perspective 
|
