Out of the blue... a rural planning policy

Last year, quite out of the blue, the government published a consultation document that has largely been ignored by the popular press but which may turn out to be one of the most fundamental reforms we have seen in rural planning policy in recent years.

Amongst other things, the government proposed that the conversion of up to 450 square metres of redundant farm buildings in to up to three houses of no more than 150 square metres each would be allowed under permitted development rules. Indeed it was further proposed that existing buildings could be demolished and a brand new house built on the same footprint.

Anyone who has been involved in trying to obtain planning consent to convert a redundant barn to a house or to build a new dwelling altogether in the countryside, will find the concept of such development being allowed through the permitted development regime, quite flabbergasting. Accordingly many observers had expected the proposals to be significantly modified.

Since the consultation ended last October, there had been deafening silence from government until last week when in response to parliamentary questions, Planning Minister Nick Boles reassured MPs that, “The Government is well aware of the arguments being put forward to exempt National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty from proposals to introduce permitted development rights for redundant agricultural buildings.” This raised speculation that in other areas outside these protected zones, that the Government may be minded to go ahead with the proposed changes.

And so when Nick Boles delivered a written statement to Parliament on 6th March it was not entirely a surprise when he wrote, “These reforms will make better use of redundant or under-used agricultural buildings, increasing rural housing without building on the countryside. Up to 450 square metres of agricultural buildings on a farm will be able to change to provide a maximum of 3 houses.”

He also went on to write, “We recognise the importance to the public of safeguarding environmentally protected areas, so this change of use will not apply in Article 1(5) land, for example national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, we expect national parks and other local planning authorities to take a positive and proactive approach to sustainable development, balancing the protection of the landscape with the social and economic wellbeing of the area”.

Nick Boles also explained that a “prior approval” process will be required where issues such as highways matters and flood risk will be taken in to account. There may also be other requirements or consequences of taking advantage of these new rules and so we await the detailed rules with interest which should be published by early April when the new regime is due to come in to force.

Possible requirements which were muted in the consultation document were that other permitted development rights would be withdrawn for a period of years thereby making it more difficult to erect a farm building elsewhere on a holding that has taken advantage of the new rules.

Not withstanding this, these new rule changes will present a significant opportunity for many farm businesses and if anyone would like further advice on the matter please do not hesitate to contact James Stephen on 01749 683381.

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

Difficulties with the weather

This is the time to reflect on the events of the last year and although the weather proved much less of a talking point this year than last, it was the aftermath of last year’s wet weather that has been one on the most significant factors affecting this year’s profits in the arable sector in particular.

 

The terrible weather in 2012, which continued in to early 2013 meant that many farmers were unable to plant winter crops last autumn. As a consequence they were forced to plant crops this spring, many of which struggled to grow as wet weather gave way of cold northerly winds well in to April. Such spring sown crops generally yield significantly less than their autumn sown equivalent, hence the impact on profits.

 

The weather did eventually warm up and we experienced hot dry conditions during June and July which impacted on the yields of some crops but in general the weather for harvest and the establishment of crops for harvest in 2014 was good. However, the writing was already on the wall for the yields for the 2013 harvest and the double whammy came in the form of falling world commodity prices. For example feed wheat and barley are trading at around £159/t and £134/t respectively today as compared to £206/t and £194/t a year ago. Accordingly with lower yields and lower prices it is not difficult to do the maths for arable farming profits in 2013.

 

As far as the livestock sector is concerned, 2013 has in general proved rather more positive than for arable farmers. This is in part because the falling arable commodity prices has reflected in falling feed prices which is particularly important for dairy farmers and more intensive beef producers. However, the margins in beef production still remain incredibly tight, despite 2013 seeing historically high beef prices peaking at over £4/kg.

 

This however causes problems to those beef farmers who fatten young beef animals bred by other farmers. The price of these so called “store” cattle has been incredibly strong which has meant beef fattening units now have frighteningly large amounts of capital tied up in livestock from which they are earning a very low margin and many of these businesses are still heavily reliant on EU support payments to make a profit.

 

In contrast to the beef industry, the lamb price was low early in the year and with wet followed by cold weather in to late spring, lambing was not easy. Further the lamb trade is heavily dependent on exports and with the EU economy suffering, demand from France in particular has been weaker which has not helped prices. Accordingly it has been a generally difficult year for many sheep farmers.

 

As far as the dairy sector is concerned the prospects look reasonably positive, provided you are not affected by the ongoing problem of TB which can have a devastating impact on dairy farms in particular. The improved weather in 2013 allowed dairy farmers to repair grass swards which were damaged by last year’s weather and to refill their empty silage pits and barns with good quality forage stocks. Further, falling arable prices will reduce feed costs over the winter and coupled with a significant increase in milk price over the last year as world demand outstripped supply, dairy farmers should see better returns in 2013, although it has to be said they did come from a very low base in 2012.

 

So, all in all the weather was so much better in 2013 than 2012 and that alone gave farmers a feeling of optimism, but the reality is that the “hangover” from last year’s weather is probably going to be felt in this year’s profit and loss accounts. But with most winter crops safely in the ground and beef and milk prices remaining firm, there is hope for most that 2014 will prove a more profitable year than 2013.

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

Hot topic: Housing in rural areas

The provision of housing in rural areas in particular is always a controversial topic; landowners are often eager to see development on the edge of a village so they can profit from the development value of the land while neighbouring householders very often don’t want development “in their back yard”.

This can lead to prolonged and expensive planning applications and one of the tactics used by those protesting against development is to try to get the land which is the subject of the planning application allocated as a “Village Green”. Very many such applications appear to be spurious, but the cost of defending such a claim can be enormous and the claim may ultimately frustrate a development altogether.

However, this tactic has been recognised by government as not being in the wider public interest and they have amended the law accordingly. Thus under the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 landowners can now proactively protect their land prior to making a planning application so as to avoid a subsequent “Village Green” application.

The process involves the landowner depositing a statement and map with the commons registration authority (the County Council), effectively bringing to an end any period of use “as of right” for lawful sports and past times on the land to which the statement relates. The deposit of the statement will not prevent the start of a new period of recreational use as of right, but the landowner may deposit further statements to interrupt future periods of use.

This extends the protection which is already afforded to landowners in relation to linear public rights of way where a similar deposit can be made under the S31(6) of the Highways Act 1980 whereby the landowner can register those rights which exist so as to prevent new rights of way being inadvertently created.

So, if you are a landowner and wish to protect your land against a “Village Green” application or claim for a new public right of way it is suggested you should look in to depositing the appropriate statements and plans now because the relatively modest upfront cost of doing so could save you or your family a huge sum of money in the future.

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

Wheat prices on the slide

Arable farmers will be looking with a degree of gloom at the recent trend in wheat prices which has seen them steadily fall since a peak in April of over £200/t to £142/t last week, which is the first time in over a year that this year’s price has dropped to lower than it was a year ago. Further a year ago wheat prices were rising on fears of world shortages as Russia had banned wheat exports but in contrast the market pressures are in reverse this year with fears of falling demand due to the slowdown in the world economy and generally better than expected harvests. It seems there is little a farmer can do to influence these international forces and so they must turn their minds to improving the efficiency of production in other ways.

In this respect many readers will have notice that in recent years there has been a trend away from ploughing land following harvest towards what is known as “minimum tillage” where the farmers pass over the stubble with a various types of machinery which usually comprise a combination of discs and tines of one form or another. The seed for the next crop is then “direct drilled” in to the seed bed which has been created. This makes sense on various levels; first it maintains the soil structure which is otherwise broken up during conventional cultivation techniques because a plough basically inverts the soil. Once ploughed the soil has to be broken down again by various other machines to create a suitable seed bed in to which the next crop can be drilled. This work is in itself expensive in terms of machinery and fuel.

At another level the minimum tillage techniques are also believed to preserve an better population of earthworms which help with the soil structure and having been on one farm walk earlier in the year, it was clear that this technique had retained far more moisture in the soil than would otherwise have been the case had the soil been ploughed. This has been particularly important in recent dry years when spring sown crops in particular have suffered from the drought conditions.

However, what I had not realised until I read a recent report of some field trials is that there can be a very significant benefit in yields for wheat crops which have been the direct drilled rather than using conventional cultivation techniques.

A recent study carried out in Suffolk has shown that the average yield from 31 plots which were direct drilled was 3.7t/acre as opposed to an average yield from all the conventionally drilled plots of 2.9t/acre. This represents an increased yield of over 25% which seems quite staggering to me and begs the question why everyone is not adopting this technique.

One reason is perhaps the fear that it is more difficult to control weeds, which is probably true, particularly for such things as “black grass” which can be very pernicious but the benefits of minimum tillage do seem quite compelling and so I suspect this will be an increasing trend for many arable farmers.

James Stephen MRICS FAAV
Partner
Rural Practice Chartered Surveyor, Wells