Landlords seeking possession of an agricultural holding under Case B of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (land required for non-agricultural use) will welcome Court of Appeal rulings that:
(1) in contrast to a “use” for planning purposes, a relevant use can include the carrying out of an operation – in that case, gravel extraction;
(2) the land may still be “required” for that use despite a comprehensive reservation of extraction rights under the terms of the lease;
(3) the landlord’s contemplated use does not become “agricultural” simply because a (standard) planning condition requires the eventual restoration of the land.
A break clause in the lease was similarly construed: see Floyer-Acland v Osmond [2000] 2 EGLR 1.
PP 2000/39
Landlords seeking possession of an agricultural holding under Case B of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (land required for non-agricultural use) will welcome Court of Appeal rulings that:
(1) in contrast to a “use” for planning purposes, a relevant use can include the carrying out of an operation – in that case, gravel extraction;
(2) the land may still be “required” for that use despite a comprehensive reservation of extraction rights under the terms of the lease;
(3) the landlord’s contemplated use does not become “agricultural” simply because a (standard) planning condition requires the eventual restoration of the land.
A break clause in the lease was similarly construed: see Floyer-Acland v Osmond [2000] 2 EGLR 1.
