Farmers and landowners to engage in the most important period of change in a generation

We find ourselves in a state of post-traumatic political shock following the referendum but whatever happens in Westminster it is the impact on real people that matters.

If we get it right, this could be a golden opportunity to forge agricultural and environmental policies that suit the UK.

But the risks are high as that prosperity will not depend only on new domestic policies but also on the success or otherwise of our negotiations about future relations with the EU and the wider world.

Therefore, now is the time for farmers and landowners to engage in what is will be the most important period of change in a generation and I set out below my take on some of the important issues identified by the NFU on which your opinion will be required.

•    Access to the EU single market; whether we like it or not the EU will continue to be our single biggest trading partner for agricultural produce for the foreseeable future.  Can we afford to jeopardise this relationship?

•    Currently we benefit from more than 50 trade agreements with countries around the world. Failure to replicate these quickly will be a problem.

•    Allied to the above is what access we are prepared to give to imports from the rest of the world? Some Brexiteers are supporters of real “free trade”, going it alone outside the single market. Is that what we really want or should imports be controlled to keep them in line with our standards of production?

•    Migration was obviously a key issue in the referendum but again we need to think very carefully about this.  Many farms need access to full-time and seasonal migrant labour in order to survive.  A points-based immigration policy that only allows skilled workers to come to the UK will not provide the workers required to keep our farms going but equally it seems free access for unskilled workers will not satisfy many who voted to leave.  This is a very difficult “square to circle” and the interaction of immigration policy with the negotiations for access to the EU single market is likely to be the biggest headache for our new political leaders.

•    On a more positive note leaving the EU does give us the opportunity to develop a new domestic agricultural policy which is adapted to our needs. However, our farmers will need an assurance that as part of this package they will still receive support so they can compete on a level playing field with our EU neighbours who will remain our principal competitors.

•    We also need to develop a rural development policy which focuses on enhancing our competitiveness and re-invigorate the agri-environmental schemes, on which we lead the EU but which have been devalued by changes to the Common Agricultural Policy. This gives us an opportunity to work with environmental organisations to devise better schemes that are workable for farmers and provide real benefit for our wildlife.

•    Finally we need a root and branch reform of European regulation and a re-assessment of the UK’s approach to issues such as GM crops.  This will be controversial in some quarters but we need to re-assess the balance between scientific evidence and the precautionary principle which is currently deployed in the EU.

Clearly there will have to be compromise which is not going to keep everyone happy, but whatever happens the NFU, CLA and other industry leaders need your input now in to this vital debate so they can enter into meaningful dialogue with government over the coming months and years.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Defra's updated version of its Farm Business Income

Defra has published an updated version of its Farm Business Income (FBI) estimates for the 2014-15 year which shows that 60 per cent of cereal farms failed to make a profit if income from EU support payments and other diversified income is excluded.

This not only demonstrates the challenges facing farmers in light of the fall in commodity prices but it also demonstrates the importance of diversified income streams without which many farms will struggle to survive. And here the widening digital divide is becoming an increasing problem.

For example when contemplating the conversion of farm buildings to offices, one of the most important features to consider is whether it is possible to provide access to broadband. This is even beginning to impact on the letting of some residential properties on rural estates I manage here in the South West.

Anyone living and working in Wells, as I do, will be all too familiar with the inadequacy of our digital infrastructure and mobile phone reception, but there is hope that these inadequacies will eventually be remedied.  However, in more remote rural areas there may be very little hope of ever being connected via the existing infrastructure.

As a result of this widespread rural problem the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) has submitted written evidence to an inquiry by the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee on the digital economy. 

The CLA noted that the government has put significant emphasis on how digital technology can increase productivity in our economy and, in their evidence, highlighted the appetite in rural areas to use new technologies.  However, the CLA raised worries about how the lack of connectivity in rural areas is contributing to the ever widening rural-urban digital divide.

This is becoming a big problem for all businesses in the countryside, not least farmers who are increasingly being required to submit information electronically such as registering cattle identification and movement information or VAT returns and these requirements are only going to increase.

Failure to address this digital divide will result in farmers and other rural communities becoming increasingly isolated from the wider economy, which is a serious concern for the future of the countryside.


James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Small number of applications for the CSS have been confirmed

Natural England have confirmed that only 2,314 applications for new Mid-Tier Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) were received by the deadline of September 30. This is a disappointing figure and raises concerns that many farmers in agri-environment schemes will now simply withdraw their land when the existing scheme ends.  

Also, because the new scheme is competitive I expect a significant number of applications will be turned down.  

This is perhaps no surprise as the existing scheme which included the “broad and shallow” Entry Level Scheme (ELS) was easy to enter and critics would say it delivered little in environmental gain. However, it did get many farmers and landowners involved in agri-environment schemes to the extent that around 70 per cent of English agricultural land is covered by some form of environmental scheme and this must have delivered some environmental benefit.

But, as funds have got tighter, the demands of the new CSS have increased and it appears they have risen to such a level that they have discouraged many farmers from even applying.  This is despite the difficult economic situation facing many of them.  

It seems the new scheme has either been designed to discourage all but the best applicants or it has been “over-engineered” - making the application and delivery of the scheme too onerous and expensive for most farmers.  My guess is that it is a bit of both but we know for certain that many farmers and landowners will not be entering the new scheme when their existing one expires.

As a result, the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) is calling for comprehensive revision of the scheme for next year.

CLA president Henry Robinson said: “Landowners and farmers want to protect and improve the environment, and we want the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme to succeed. However the chaos of the new scheme’s introduction and the complexity of its requirements have put land managers off participating next year.

“We have been warning the government for months, but they failed to take the swift and decisive action that was required to salvage the scheme. England’s natural environment and wildlife will pay the price. This is a big step backwards in our efforts to improve the environmental management of our landscapes.

“Defra must now enter into open discussion with land managers to ensure that next year’s scheme is much improved both in terms of being viable for applicants and also delivering the best environmental benefits.”

However, it remains to be seen whether Defra will listen to such calls or whether attracting only limited numbers of committed farmers and landowners is the purpose behind the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme. 


James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

All things to all men

When the new regulations for permitted development rights to convert agricultural buildings to residential use were introduced on 6th April last year, the hope was that this would allow farmers to convert old farm buildings to generate much needed additional income or a capital asset to sell. At the same time it was hoped that this would also help alleviate the shortage of residential accommodation in the countryside.

However, the reality has been very different because the regulations are open to wide interpretation. They state that the local planning authority can consider “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use…” to residential use. What does that mean I may hear you ask? Well the answer appears to be “all things to all men”.

As a consequence, some local authorities have been very relaxed while according to the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) nearly 60 local authorities have refused all applications.

In the Mendip area, anecdotal evidence appears to indicate that many of the early applications were permitted but as time has gone on, the planning authority has become more confident in turning down applications. Common reasons for refusal are that the building is in an “undesirable” or “impractical” area or the conversion is considered to be “unsustainable”.

Fenella Collins, head of planning at the CLA has commented that, “There is real frustration and there needs to be greater guidance to reduce misinterpretation”.

I suspect frustration is also felt by local authorities who are having to balance what on the face of it are contradictory policies coming out of national government, which on the one hand discourages new development in isolated areas and then on the other appears to be encouraging exactly the opposite.

Therefore government needs to clarify what they are wanting to achieve and in so doing provide clearer guidance on what may be considered to be “undesirable” or “impractical” or indeed what may be considered “sustainable” in the context of farm buildings, which by their very nature are often found in the countryside.

For example government may consider giving consent for conversion of an isolated building down a long farm track to be “undesirable”, whereas the conversion a building or group of buildings that may in themselves be close to existing residential property or near a bus route or village may be considered desirable.

These are only a few of my thoughts but if government were to provide some more explicit guidance on the subject I think this would assist farmers and local authorities alike so as to avoid the “post code lottery” that currently exists.  

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk

Floods, Floods and More Floods

Earlier this week I was speaking to a colleague who had just returned from a holiday in Sri Lanka and she remarked that the only news she had seen about the UK while she was away was a CNN report concerning the flooding on the Somerset Levels. I think this highlights the severity of the situation which is facing farmers and householders on the Somerset Levels.

Certainly the Media have embraced the situation which has attracted the attention of government ministers, the Prime Minister and last week even the Prince of Wales, all of whom have acknowledged the plight of those whose livelihoods and homes are being threatened by rising flood waters.

Back in early January I wrote about the flooding, explaining that winter flooding is not in general as damaging to agriculture as the summer floods we saw in 2012, but I have to say I was not expecting the situation to continue getting worse over the ensuing four weeks.

At the time of writing this article, householders and livestock are being evacuated from villages such as Moorland as the water levels continue to rise. There are properties being flooded which have not flooded in living memory, while James Winslade, a farmer from Moorland has had to transport more than 500 of his cattle to Sedgemoor Market which has opened its doors to act as a collection centre for evacuated stock from where other farmers can pick them up to re-home them.

Sedgmoor Market auctioneer, Robert Venner said the support from local farmers and businesses has been “absolutely staggering”. But Ian Johnson, NFU spokesman in the South West, said the flooding and misery caused to farmers and homeowners was “completely avoidable.”

Country Land and Business Association (CLA) South West Director, John Mortimer, said that everyone involved, including the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, now agreed that dredging was essential as a rapid solution.

“Work should start as soon as practically possible but it may well need to continue for some years until the whole system – including those sections managed by the Internal Drainage Boards - has yielded up its stored silts and deposits,” he said.

He went on to comment, “The initial work should be paid for by Central Government but we will then have to deliver a full and detailed appraisal of what it will cost to maintain and manage the system once it has been restored to design capacity.”

However, with more storms forecast, it seems inevitable that things are going to get worse before they get better but perhaps the one good thing that has come out of all this misery is the acceptance, at the very highest level, that extra money will need to be provided by government to dredge the main water courses even if the ongoing responsibility will then revert to farmers and landowners in the locality.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells
T: 01749 683381
E: james.stephen@carterjonas.co.uk