The appellant had bought the cottage in 1997 on his retirement from the army, since when he had worked as a gamekeeper. The condition permitted occupancy by persons whose employment or latest employment was in agriculture or forestry or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture. The appellant reared pheasants between February and August, managed deer throughout the year and escorted or led shooting parties between October and January. He was also a licensed dealer in game and a registered firearms dealer.
The inspector noted that two cattle grazed the appellant’s fields and kept the grass down during the pheasant rearing season. When appropriate, they would be killed and butchered for the appellant’s own consumption. The council considered that the sowings and managing of catch and cover crops used for feeding, seducing and providing cover for pheasants, as practised by the appellant, amounted to agricultural activities. It also argued that game keeping, firearms trading and deer stalking could be said to be reliant upon agricultural uses and activities as game was produced for food.
The inspector recorded that S336 of the 1990 Act did not include pheasant rearing and shooting or any other gamekeeping-related activities within the definition of agriculture. The courts, he noted, had also held that animals for game did not constitute agriculture and that the rearing of game birds was not an agricultural activity. He further noted that shooting for sport was the primary purpose of the appellant’s gamekeeping activities and that game was only eaten as a by-product of shooting. He ruled that even if the sowing and management of catch and cover crops for game birds were agricultural activities these, together with the keeping of the two cattle, were de minimis.
The inspector concluded that the appellant was not employed in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture and that as a consequence he had been living at the cottage in breach of the occupancy condition for more than ten years. The council’s refusal to issue an LDC was therefore not well-founded.
Inspector Clive Kirkbride; Written representations
