Protected Agricultural Tenant Must Make Way for ‘New Town’ Development

Protected Agricultural Tenant Must Make Way for New Town Development

The special protection against eviction enjoyed by many agricultural tenants can be overcome if a landlord can show that the relevant land is ‘required’ for some other purpose. The question of what constitutes such a ‘requirement’ was addressed in a High Court case on which proposals for a major residential development hinged.

A farmer whose tenancy was protected under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 was served with five notices to quit by his landlord. Three of them were later upheld by an arbitrator. The notices required him to quit his home and hundreds of acres of farmland he held under leases dating back to the 1960s.

The arbitrator reached his decision on the basis that the landlord required the land in order to implement a planning permission for the construction of what was in effect a new town of 7,000 homes. The project, which included five new schools, roads and other infrastructure, was to be carried out in phases over a period of 20 years.

Ruling on the tenant’s challenge to the arbitrator’s decision, the Court noted that, in order to be ‘required’ within the meaning of the Act, the relevant land had to be so required at the end of the period stated in the notices to quit or within a relatively short time thereafter. It was not enough for the landlord to state that he would require the land in the more distant future or at some as yet unascertained time.

Although it was accepted that some of the land affected by the notices would not be developed for a number of years, the Court found no error of law in the arbitrator’s conclusion that the landlord genuinely required it. It was open to the arbitrator to find that there was a present requirement for the land for the purposes of earth moving, storage and infrastructure works. He was also entitled to conclude that the landlord intended to develop the land and had a reasonable prospect of doing so.

The tenant’s other grounds of challenge to the arbitrator’s decision, including that he had suffered substantial injustice due to alleged serious irregularities in the arbitration process, also fell on fallow ground.

Our articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.




Covid19 Information

WE ARE STILL OPEN FOR BUSINESS HOWEVER, OUR FRONT DOORS WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. For us all to be as safe as possible, our preference will be to interact with clients by telephone, email and/or zoom meetings ONLY. We would ask that if you have to drop any papers off at our offices, you use our Post Box unless you need anything copying, in those cases please knock the door and one of our receptionists will deal with you at the front door but only if you are wearing protective face coverings. If you require further assistance then a member from the relevant department will telephone you thereafter to discuss. We hope you understand that this is to safeguard you, our staff and to limit as much contact as possible. We may take a little longer to respond to enquiries and deal with matters. Please bear with us. FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW.