In this short blog, Julie Robinson looks at whether tenant farmers faced with a Case B notice to quit can successfully challenge that notice where land continues to have some agricultural use following development.
The grounds for a Case B notice to quit under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 are that the land is required for a use, other than for agriculture, for which permission has been granted under the planning acts (or is deemed granted under various other provisions).
Looking at the wording of the Act, the focus seems to be the use for which planning permission has been granted, rather than whether there will also be some agricultural activity on the development land once that land has been taken back.
We have been asked by tenant farmers affected by planning applications for solar developments whether, if one of the conditions of planning permission is that land is grazed following the installation of the solar panels, their landlord’s Case B notice to quit will be invalid.
The issue here is whether the land must be required for uses which are wholly and exclusively non-agricultural. The key case is Floyer-Acland v Osmond (2000). In Floyer-Acland, a Case B notice was served after planning permission was granted for mineral working but subject to the condition that the land was later re-instated to agricultural use. The tenant referred the notice to arbitration and the arbitrator stated a case for the court’s determination. When it reached the Court of Appeal, it was held that provided the land is required for a non-agricultural use, the fact that there will also be some non-agricultural use does not affect the validity of the Case B notice. The question to focus on is why the landlord wants to regain possession of the land.
In Floyer-Acland, the uses were successive, with agricultural re-instatement following the use of the land for mineral extraction. We do not have a recent reported case dealing with concurrent uses, one of which needs planning permission and is non-agricultural, and the other being some kind of agricultural use such as grazing. However, this point was also covered in the Floyer-Acland judgment, with one of the lord justices saying that, in his view, the Case B provisions allow for the possibility of more than one use.
Given the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the wording of the Case B provisions in the Agricultural Holdings Act, we would suggest that a claim that a Case B notice is invalid where there is a planning condition requiring land used for solar to be grazed would be a difficult one to bring. It would entail distinguishing the claim from the claim brought by the tenant in the Floyer-Acland case.
That does not mean that tenants are completely powerless. They can raise objections in relation to applications for planning permission, and in any appeal. The personal circumstances of tenant farmers can be material considerations in planning cases.
For more information in relation to Agricultural Holdings Act tenancies, please do get in touch with Sarah Whitehurst or Julie Robinson.