Agriculture Monthly Review: November 2010

There is no doubt whatsoever that the buzz word in agricultural circles these days is “renewable”. There are now so many areas of energy generation where the word renewable features and not the least of these are wind farms. Needless to say, they are an increasingly common feature of the landscape, whether offshore or in a field. My experience of wind farm developments is that they certainly generate more heat than light! A recent case which went before the High Court illustrated some of the difficulties that can arise. In that particular case, planning permission had been given for a small commercial wind farm in the Lake District. As usual, the consent was subject to a number of conditions and the consent was challenged by a Mr and Mrs Barnes who were members of a local countryside protection group. Mr and Mrs Barnes objected on a number of grounds which included issues as to the legality of the consent itself as well as the conditions to which it was subject. They also alleged that the Inspector had not taken into consideration some of the impact which the wind farm would create. Altogether there were six grounds upon which the decision was challenged and the High Court Judge dismissed each and every one of them.

 

The moral of the story must inevitably centre on the debate between commerciality and principle. Presumably Mr and Mrs Barnes and their group must have asked themselves the question, “Is the principle worth this action and the costs, no matter what the result?. It is a good question for all potential litigants to ask themselves!

 

There can be very few areas of commercial activity where it is possible to succeed to your father’s position by law but, of course, this is exactly what can happen under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The legislation provides for succession rights given certain qualifying conditions and it is these conditions which give rise to a never ending series of cases in the Agricultural Land Tribunal. A recent one related to a farm in Middlesex when Mr Helm applied to succeed his father who had died. As Mr Helm had not derived his principal source of livelihood from work on the holding during the required period, he had to show that he had done so to a “material extent”. As you might imagine, this provision causes protracted debate whenever it is raised and Mr Helm’s case was no different. In fact, Mr Helm had run an animal feed business as well as relying on income from the holding. He had lived at the premises throughout the 7 years prior to his father’s death and no wages were ever paid to him but he had free board and lodging, clothing, food, household goods and even the use of a car. In addition to the items mentioned above, he also had the benefit of hay and straw from the holding. Thus he received significant benefits which were, in effect, benefits in kind. As it happened, Mr Helm almost lost his case because he did not do enough to quantify the value of these benefits in kind. Fortunately for him in this case, the Tribunal was able to put figures on the various benefits and it was found that he had earned his principal source of livelihood from qualifying work during the relevant period. The other parts of his application were found to be in order and the Tribunal agreed that he should succeed to his father’s tenancy.

 

Good advice to tenants is that it is never too early to prepare the ground for a succession tenancy but all too few tenants take that advice! Mr Helm would no doubt have been saved a good deal of expense and worry had his father and he undertaken some good preparatory work. It is a lesson that all tenants would do well to note.