“Here I come, ready or not” – tenant loses fight to block landlord’s access for surveys

Farm landlords seeking planning permission for development will be raising a small glass to the Court of Appeal after the decision in Rees v Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth according to Jonathan Carroll Head of Agriculture and Property.

Agricultural Holdings Act tenants have frequently tried to block landlords from getting planning permission or from being able to implement any they obtain.  Case B of Schedule 3 to the 1986 Act allows a landlord to give Notice to Quit if repossession of the land is required to implement a non-agricultural use for which planning permission has been given, but tenants can take that issue to arbitration.

If a tenant can show that the landlord could not actually commence development within a reasonable period after the land is taken back, they can argue that the landlord has no genuine requirement for the land and defeat the landlord’s notices.

Where a landlord needs ecological surveys to even get planning permission, a tenant may be able to block them from the outset by refusing entry; If the landlord has outline planning permission but cannot carry out the surveys needed to get full permission, the tenant has a chance of blocking implementation before the permission expires.  The terms of the tenancy agreement are key.

In this case the landlord needed to conduct bat surveys, and to leave monitoring equipment on the holding to do that.  The tenancy agreement did contain a right for the landlord to enter for reasonable purposes, but not a specific right to leave equipment or for this type of survey.

The tenant argued that the landlord’s rights of entry in the tenancy agreement had to be interpreted as narrowly as possible, and that leaving equipment on the holding was a step too far.

The Court disagreed.  The clause had to be interpreted with a much more sensible mind that that. If there was a reasonable purpose for which the landlords wished to enter the land, the proper interpretation had to be to enable them to do what was reasonably necessary to achieve their purpose.

If the landlord had proposed a much more intrusive activity, such as digging trenches, then things may not have gone the same way, as the Court may have felt the purpose was not reasonable.  The case highlights the need to read tenancy agreements carefully and to consider them in light of what is actually proposed, rather than there being one blanket rule for every case.

Landlords proposing development must take specialist legal advice early in the process and before relationships deteriorate.  Tenants faced with losing their holding, or seeking a commercial rate to give possession, should do the same.

If you would more information on the above or have any agricultural enquiries, please contact Jonathan and his team on 01228 514077 or click here to send him an email.