Good afternoon. I have been reading the forum for a couple of months and finally have a question specific enough to justify posting.
I recently sold a property overseas and am looking to purchase a rural property in the South West, ideally something with character and a bit of land. I have found what appears to be an excellent barn conversion in North Devon, offered at £375,000. Four bedrooms, two acres, beautifully done. The catch is that the property has an agricultural occupancy condition (AOC) attached to the planning consent from the original conversion in 1998. The condition restricts occupation to someone employed or last employed in agriculture, forestry, or a related rural enterprise, or a dependant of such a person.
I am not and have never been employed in agriculture. My understanding is that the condition can potentially be removed through a Section 73 application to the local planning authority, but that success depends on demonstrating that the property has been marketed at a reduced price reflecting the AOC for a sustained period (typically 12 months) without attracting a qualifying buyer. Some authorities also require evidence that there is no local need for agricultural dwellings.
My questions are:
-
Is the vendor the right person to be applying for removal of the AOC, or can a prospective buyer do this? My thinking is that it is in the vendor’s interest to apply and get it removed before sale, as the property would then command a significantly higher price without the restriction.
-
If the AOC remains in place at the point of purchase, what is the realistic risk of enforcement? I have read that many local authorities turn a blind eye to AOC breaches, but I am not comfortable relying on that.
-
For anyone who has been through this process, roughly how long does the Section 73 application take, and what are the typical costs involved?
I appreciate that there may be a degree of regional variation in how planning authorities approach this. The property is in North Devon District Council’s area if that helps. I have not yet instructed a solicitor but intend to do so next week if the responses here give me enough confidence that this is a viable purchase.
Thanks in advance.
Early, interesting one this, I know a bit about AOCs because my neighbour went through exactly this about three years ago with a farmworker’s cottage they bought in Derbyshire. The short version is it took them 18 months from application to removal and it was NOT straightforward.
On your question about who applies, in theory either the vendor or the buyer can submit the Section 73 application, BUT in practice it makes far more sense for the vendor to do it because (a) the property is worth significantly more without the condition so they benefit directly, and (b) part of the evidence required is a sustained marketing period at a reduced price reflecting the AOC, and only the vendor can provide that marketing history. If the vendor has been marketing at £375k with the AOC still in place, that actually works against removal because the council will say well you clearly think you can sell it at that price to a qualifying buyer. The marketing needs to show that nobody qualifying came forward at a REDUCED price, typically 30-40% below unrestricted market value, for at least 12 months. So if the unrestricted value is say £500k, they would need to show marketing at around £300-350k for 12 months with no qualifying takers.
On enforcement risk, my neighbour’s solicitor told them that while many councils do not actively enforce, the condition runs with the land and any future sale or mortgage application will flag it. Lenders are generally very reluctant to lend on properties with unresolved AOCs, which crushes your buyer pool if you ever want to sell. Since you are cash this is less of an immediate problem but it affects the exit.
Costs wise my neighbour paid about £2,500 all in for the planning application and supporting evidence, plus solicitor fees on top.
Honestly if the vendor has not already started the removal process I would be asking why, because it suggests either they do not think it will succeed or they are hoping to sell to someone who does not look too closely.
Dave, thank you for that, genuinely useful. The Derbyshire example is interesting because it sounds like the council pushed back initially but eventually conceded. My situation may be slightly stronger. The current owner is a retired graphic designer who has lived there since 2020, so we are looking at six years of continuous non-agricultural occupation. My understanding is that ten years triggers a certificate of lawfulness as of right under section 191, but I have seen conflicting guidance on whether there is a realistic prospect of removal via a section 73 application before that threshold.
The vendor’s solicitor has provided a letter from the planning authority dated March this year stating they are “not minded to take enforcement action at this time,” which is encouraging but obviously not the same as formal removal. My concern is the valuation gap. The surveyor has valued the property at £385,000 without the AOC and £310,000 with it. That is a significant spread and the mortgage lender is using the lower figure, which changes my deposit calculations substantially. I wonder whether title indemnity insurance might bridge the gap in the lender’s eyes, or whether that is wishful thinking.