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
A property blog written and authored by our specialist blogging team, discussing all and any matter relating to the residential, rural and commercial property markets.
Showing posts with label Country land and business association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Country land and business association. Show all posts
Monday, 2 November 2015
Monday, 2 March 2015
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
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
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)