Continue to be battered by bad news

Dairy farmers continue to be battered by bad news as the milk price continues to tumble although it is not an even playing field across the many different milk supply contracts on offer.

Worst hit at present appear to be farmers supplying First Milk which is a farmer owned co-op whose suppliers/members seem to be badly exposed to the world milk commodity prices which also continue to fall. Suppliers of First Milk have received the unwelcome news that the price for their liquid milk and manufacturing contracts will be falling by 1.4p/litre and 1.8p/litre respectively in December to 22.7p/litre for liquid and 24p/litre for manufacturing milk.

Many of the other milk buyers have also announced cuts including Arla, which has reduced the price for its farmers on their “direct supply” contract by 3p. These farmers are not Arla members and perhaps as a consequence of this, Arla has chosen reduce their price milk rather than that paid to its members, explaining that the direct supply milk was surplus to retail demand and was therefore only attracting commodity prices.

Thus, although all farmers will be affected by the fall in milk prices some farmers are being disproportionately badly affected. In light of this it seems to me that getting on the right milk contract is probably one of the most important business decisions many dairy farmers should be considering and I cannot see how farmers supplying a buyer such as First Milk will survive for any length of time with a milk price as low as 22.7p/litre.

Indeed I would imagine this must bring in to question the sustainability of First Milk as a business because I can only imagine many of their suppliers, despite being owners of the business as well as suppliers, will be seriously looking at their options, whether that be looking to switch to another milk purchaser, or perhaps even stopping dairy farming altogether.

The Chairman of First Milk, Jim Paice who previously served as farm minister in DEFRA during the peak of the milk price protests in 2012, blamed the price cuts on a drop in returns for liquid milk and cheese in the past month.

“With cheese specifically, this impacts not only on what we are selling now, but on the price that we can sell our cheese stocks for in the future,” added Jim Paice.

But even so, it must be galling for First Milk members to see other dairy farmers still being paid nearer 30p than 20p/litre for producing exactly the same product.  

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

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