Fawcett: agricultural occupancy conditions and certainty
Fawcett Properties Limited v Buckingham County Council [1961] AC 636 concerns a condition restricting who could occupy two cottages in the countryside.
The House of Lords upheld the restriction. It was connected with a legitimate planning purpose, continued beyond the first occupation and, by a majority, was sufficiently certain to be effective.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [1961] AC 636; [1960] 3 WLR 831; [1960] 3 All ER 503
- Court
- House of Lords
- Judgment date
- 26th October 1960
- Judge
- Lord Cohen, Lord Morton of Henryton, Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Denning and Lord Jenkins
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
Why the cottages had an occupancy restriction
Permission had been granted for two farm-workers’ cottages near Chalfont St Giles. The condition limited occupation to people employed, or last employed, in agriculture, forestry or an industry mainly dependent on agriculture, together with their dependants.
Fawcett later acquired the cottages and wished to let them to people outside those categories. It argued that the condition exceeded the council’s powers, was uncertain, or had already served its purpose once the first agricultural workers had occupied the homes.
The appeal failed. The 1961 report records a judgment delivered on 26th October 1960.
The occupier’s circumstances could serve a planning purpose
The restriction was not invalid simply because it referred to the employment of the people living in the buildings. Its purpose was to control residential development in an area where unrestricted housing would not have been acceptable.
The court also rejected the argument that the condition was too wide to relate fairly and reasonably to the development and the planning policy being applied. The restriction was not limited to workers on one particular farm.
This does not mean that any preference about who may live in a property is a lawful planning condition. The connection with the development and a legitimate planning purpose remains important. Read Newbury for the wider conditions principles.
A difficult borderline case is not necessarily uncertainty
The majority concluded that the condition’s language had an intelligible and ascertainable meaning. Difficulty deciding whether a particular employment fell within it did not make the whole condition meaningless.
Lord Morton disagreed on this uncertainty issue. It would therefore be inaccurate to describe every part of the reasoning as unanimous.
The case is not a reason to draft vague restrictions. A condition still needs to be interpreted carefully and must communicate an enforceable obligation. Trump International supplies later guidance on interpreting conditions objectively and in context.
The restriction did not expire after the first letting
The condition governed occupation of the cottages, not merely their initial allocation. The fact that agricultural workers had occupied them first did not exhaust the restriction.
For a property purchase or a proposed change of occupier, start with the actual permission and its wording. Fawcett does not make every agricultural tie identical, nor does it automatically decide whether a particular person qualifies under a differently drafted condition.
Read the Fawcett report
The scanned law report is available to Gold Members below. The legislation and policy described in the judgment are historical; they should not be copied as current procedural advice.
Fawcett Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026