How to Remove Agricultural Tie Planning Conditions
The two real routes to removing an agricultural occupancy condition (agricultural tie) in England: proving no need under section 73, or a lawful development certificate after 4 or 10 years.
PLANNING CONDITIONS
Andrew Ransome
9/28/20265 min read
An agricultural tie can devalue a property's value, make it far harder to mortgage or sell, and restrict occupation to someone working, or who last worked, in agriculture or forestry locally — plus their widow, widower or dependants.
There are two potential routes to getting one removed, and which one applies depends on the specific facts of the property.
This article sets out these options, including the legal basis and the case law behind them.
What an agricultural tie actually is
An agricultural occupancy condition (AOC), commonly called an agricultural tie, is a planning condition attached when permission was granted.
This condition is usually because the local authority accepted an essential need for a rural worker to live at or near their place of work. The condition is what made that permission acceptable in the first place: without it, the dwelling would typically have been refused as isolated housing in the countryside.
The wording varies, but a typical condition restricts occupation to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or forestry, and may include a widow, widower or civil partner of such a person, and any resident dependants.
What counts as a "dependant" isn't limited to someone financially dependent in the narrow sense.
The House of Lords in Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckinghamshire CC held that it means someone living in family with the named worker and dependent on them, in whole or in part, for their subsistence and support.
The Court of Appeal in Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed that reading extends beyond pure financial dependency. In that case, a husband who was the family's main earner was still found to be his agricultural-worker wife's "dependant" for these purposes, because the wider family arrangement, not just the money, was what mattered.
Section 73: showing the condition no longer serves a purpose
This is the most commonly used route, and it works by making an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary or remove the condition, supported by evidence that there's no longer a genuine need for the dwelling to be reserved for a rural worker.
The core evidence generally needed is:
Genuine open-market marketing. The property needs to have been offered for sale (or, where relevant, to let) at a price that properly reflects the tie, ideally supported by an independent RICS valuation — for a realistic period. Twelve months is the figure most local planning authorities look for, though there's no single fixed national minimum, and some accept shorter or ask for longer depending on local policy.
No qualifying interest. A lack of any offer from a genuine agricultural or forestry worker (or their dependants) during that period.
Evidence of no wider local need. It's not enough to show nobody wanted to buy your particular house — a well-prepared application also addresses whether any other agricultural or forestry business in the area has a need for this kind of accommodation. Directly notifying nearby farms and rural businesses that the property is available, and keeping a record of the response (or lack of it), materially strengthens an application on this point.
The state of the underlying enterprise. Where the agricultural or forestry business the condition was tied to has ceased, been sold, or significantly changed, evidence of that is directly relevant to whether the condition still serves any purpose.
Two cases set the legal tone for how this evidence gets weighed.
Sevenoaks DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Geer confirms that the decision-maker has to look at whether there's a genuine, current justification for the condition today — not just whether it was appropriately imposed originally.
Hambleton DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Barker confirms it's legitimate to take into account whether the condition would even be imposed if the application were made today. In that case, because the site had since come within a village's settlement limits, where such a condition wouldn't normally be applied to a new proposal in the first place.
Both points can be argued together: has anything actually changed since the condition was imposed, and would today's policy even ask for it.
A lawful development certificate
Where the condition has, in fact, already been breached , i.e. the property has been occupied by someone who doesn't meet the agricultural criteria, continuously, for the required period — an application for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development (a CLEUD, under section 191 of the 1990 Act) is the another route.
As of 25 April 2024, the position in England changed, the previous split between a 4-year and a 10-year immunity period was replaced with a single, uniform 10-year period for all breaches of planning control, including breach of a condition.
Making out a CLEUD case means demonstrating, on the balance of probabilities, that the property has been occupied otherwise than in accordance with the condition for a continuous period of at least 10 years, with no enforcement action taken in that time.
That's an evidential exercise — council tax and electoral roll records, utility bills, tenancy or employment evidence, and witness evidence from neighbours can all be relevant.
Once a CLEUD has been granted, the dwelling is lawful as occupied.
Where the tie is a section 106 obligation, not a condition
Some agricultural ties, particularly on larger or more contentious schemes, are secured by a planning obligation rather than a straightforward condition,
This matters because the removal route is different.
A section 106 obligation isn't varied or discharged through a section 73 application in the same way a condition is. It needs either the agreement of the local authority to a deed of variation, or a formal application under section 106A of the 1990 Act.
Section 106A carries an important restriction: no application to modify or discharge an obligation can be made until at least five years have passed since it was entered into (or a shorter period, if the agreement itself specifies one) — so the timing question needs answering before anything else on an obligation-based tie.
Get advice on removing an agricultural tie
If you're weighing up whether a property's agricultural tie can realistically be removed, and which route fits the facts, it's worth having the position assessed before committing to a marketing campaign or an application. Get in touch with me to discuss your property.
Andrew Ransome MRTPI - Email: andrew@andrewransome.co.uk
About me
Andrew Ransome is a Planning Director and a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), with more than two decades of experience in town planning.
He specialises in delivering strategic planning solutions for complex developments across both rural and urban environments, helping clients navigate planning challenges and unlock development opportunities. Connect with Andrew on Linkedin.
Planning Conditions Information
Recent Planning Approvals
Get in Touch
Email: andrew@andrewransome.co.uk
Tel: 020 7096 8045
London Office:
60 Tottenham Court Road
Fitzrovia
London
W1T 2EW
© 2026 Andrew Ransome Town Planning Ltd. All rights reserved.
Content on this website is provided for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute formal planning, professional, or legal advice. Planning policies, legislation, and guidance are subject to change. Site-specific assessment by a qualified consultant is recommended before making development decisions.
Projects highlighted across this website represent professional work undertaken by Andrew Ransome throughout his career.