The original condition stated that the dwelling should be occupied only in connection with the working of the applicant’s farm. Prior to his retirement the appellant had worked on his father’s farm but this had been disposed of on this brother’s retirement and was now in use as an equestrian business. Accordingly, the inspector found that the condition lacked precision at the time it was imposed because it referred to the applicant’s farm and in any event the bungalow no longer had any connection with any farm or land used for agricultural purposes. She also noted that the disputed condition could not be complied with once the applicant had retired. She considered this unreasonable, notwithstanding any conclusion that the condition might be difficult to enforce.
The inspector then considered whether a need for an agricultural worker’s dwelling was likely to arise in the near future. However, she found only a low level of demand in the locality over the preceding 18 years. In the circumstances she did not consider that there was adequate justification for imposing an agricultural worker’s condition in the standard form included in circular 11/95. She deleted the disputed condition.
Inspector Laura Graham; Written representations
