2 – Greenfield development –accessing tenanted landA landlord of an Agricultural Holdings Act tenancy who wishes todevelop part of the holding will often need access to carry out surveysin support of a planning application. If planning consent is obtained, thelandlord will need vacant possession in order to develop. In either case,difficulties can arise where the tenant opposes the landlord’s plans.Thomas KirkmanThe recent decisions in Rees v Windsor-Clive related to a 240 acre largely arablefarm close to Cardiff. The longstanding tenant had farmed the holding under twotenancy agreements (dated 1965 and 1968); both protected by the AgriculturalHoldings Act 1986 (AHA).The landlord obtained outline planning permission for housing on the land. Theenvironmental conditions required the landlord to undertake various landscape, wildlifeand habitat surveys, dig trial pits and boreholes, place surveyors’ stakes and leave batdetectors on the land.Gaining access under landlord’s reservationsIt is not unusual for AHA tenancies to reserve minimal rights of entry to the landlord, whichare often generally worded and open to interpretation.In Rees v Windsor-Clive the landlord claimed that it was entitled to enter the farm under aright of entry in each tenancy as a result of the following wording:• The 1965 tenancy contained a right to “enter on any part of the farm lands andpremises at all reasonable times and for all reasonable purposes”, and• The 1968 tenancy agreement included a right to enter the premises “for the purposesof inspecting the same”.Asked to consider exactly what those rights would allow a landlord to do, Lord JusticeLewison confirmed the following principles:• the usual principles of contractual interpretation and meaning of words are to beapplied in interpreting any rights excepted or reserved by a landlord in a lease,• the rights reserved to the landlord should not breach their obligation to provide quietenjoyment (this would only be likely to arise where substantial or serious interferencewith the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the land occurred or where the rightsreserved to the landlord would frustrate the purpose of the letting),• where a landlord’s activity will cause ‘material disturbance or damage’ to the tenantwe should expect it to be expressly authorised by the tenancy,• where a right of entry can be exercised for a ‘reasonable purpose’, the landlord isentitled to do what is ‘reasonably necessary’, but not necessarily what is ‘convenient’or ‘desirable’ in order to achieve that purpose,• there is no rule preventing those exercising a landlord’s right of entry from leavingthings on the land (in this case bat detectors), and• what is permitted by a right of entry will be a question of fact and degree ineach case.6Rural Estates NewsletterSpring 2021
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
