Removing an agricultural occupancy condition by section 73

To remove an agricultural occupancy condition you apply under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary or remove that condition, and you win or lose the application on marketing evidence rather than on your own circumstances. The council is asking one question: is there still a need for this dwelling to be occupied by a rural worker in this locality? Your job is to show that a genuine attempt to sell or let the house at a price reflecting the restriction found no qualifying buyer.

What an occupancy condition restricts

The standard wording limits occupation to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in agriculture as defined by section 336 of the 1990 Act, or in forestry, together with dependants and a surviving partner. Older versions vary. Some are tied to a named holding, some to the locality, some to "agriculture or forestry", and a few to a specific person.

Read the condition on the original decision notice before anything else. A condition tied to employment "in the locality" is easier to satisfy than one tied to a named farm, and a condition that has already been varied once may have narrowed or widened in ways nobody has noticed.

The restriction runs with the land. It binds the current owner regardless of who agreed to it in 1974, and it depresses value because the pool of lawful occupiers is small. That discount is the whole basis of the removal case.

The section 73 route and what it decides

A section 73 application asks for planning permission for the same development without the condition, or with a different one. The council can grant it, refuse it, or grant a modified condition. It cannot use section 73 to revisit the description of development or to reopen the principle of the dwelling.

Two points are worth holding on to. A section 73 grant is a new planning permission sitting alongside the original, so the original permission with its condition survives and you should make sure the decision notice is clear about which one governs. And the eight-week determination period applies, with a fee set by the national schedule that is indexed each April, so check the current figure before you submit.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 inserted a further route, section 73B, intended as an alternative for varying permissions. Check whether it is in force and how your authority is applying it before choosing between the two.

Marketing evidence and the period expected

This is where applications are usually lost. Councils set out what they expect in the adopted local plan or a rural housing supplementary planning document, often a continuous marketing period of twelve months, and they read the evidence closely.

A marketing exercise that satisfies a case officer usually has all of the following behind it:

• A written agency instruction naming the property, the asking price and the period, from an agent with rural and agricultural experience.
• Advertising in the local and regional press, on the main property portals, and in outlets read by farm workers and rural employers.
• Dated copies of every particular, listing and advertisement, showing the tie was disclosed.
• A log of enquiries, viewings and offers, with the reason each fell away.
• Direct approaches to neighbouring farms, estates, the local authority's housing team and any registered provider active in the area.

Advertising that hides the condition is worse than useless. So is an asking price set at open market value, because the council will say the tie was never really tested.

Valuing at a discount to open market

The price must reflect the restriction. Get a valuation from a chartered surveyor who is registered for valuation work and who deals in agricultural property, and ask for two figures: unrestricted open market value and restricted value, with the reasoning and comparable evidence set out.

Discounts vary widely with location, house size, land and the strength of local rural employment, which is why a single national percentage is not worth quoting. What matters is that the restricted figure is supported by comparables and that the property was actually marketed at or near it, not above it.

If the property was marketed at a discount and still attracted a qualifying buyer, the application fails on its own evidence. That is a real risk, and it is better to find out before you commit to the exercise.

Local need evidence the council gathers

Alongside your marketing file the authority will look at need across the wider area rather than on the original holding alone. Officers typically check the supply of other tied dwellings nearby, recent agricultural worker dwelling permissions, and any agricultural or rural housing needs work sitting behind the local plan.

They may also ask an independent agricultural consultant to comment. Where the council has recently granted a new rural worker's dwelling within a few miles, expect that to be raised as evidence that need persists.

This is also where the history of the holding matters. A dwelling severed from its land twenty years ago, with the farm buildings converted and the land sold off, presents very differently from one still standing in the middle of a working unit. The same point comes up when owners look at replacing a rural building rather than converting it, where the relationship between the building and the holding drives the policy test.

Outcomes short of full removal

Councils often prefer a middle course, and it is worth proposing one rather than waiting to be refused.

A widened condition keeps some planning control while making the house saleable, and it is a great deal easier to negotiate than outright removal. Where the property is also used for storage, stabling or a caravan, check how those uses sit with the condition, because mobile homes and caravans on agricultural land carry their own separate controls.

The alternative where the condition has long been breached

Where the dwelling has been occupied in breach of the condition continuously for ten years or more, the route is not section 73 at all. It is an application under section 191 for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development, which turns on evidence of continuous occupation rather than on marketing.

The two routes are different in kind. Section 73 is a planning judgement on need. A section 191 certificate is a finding of fact, decided on the balance of probabilities, and it cannot be refused on policy grounds. Applicants sometimes run both, which is expensive and can muddle the evidence.

Costs and timescales

Budget for the valuation, twelve months of agency fees and advertising, the application fee and a Planning Statement that ties the marketing log, the valuation and the policy tests together. Eight weeks is the determination period, though rural cases with a consultant's input often run longer, and an appeal against refusal adds several months.

Start the marketing before you start the application. The evidence has to be complete on the day you submit, and a case officer who receives nine months of advertising against a twelve-month policy will simply refuse.

If you are assembling the paperwork, PlanScope can draft the planning statement and the supporting documents from your answers and a postcode, ready for you or your agent to check. Enter your postcode to see which reports the site is likely to need.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.