Big J on radio 4..

[difflock]

Re economical viability and scale "J"

A local farmer has just put up a new chicken house, to supply organic eggs to the London market, the hens need access to 12 acres, he with much previous experience,i.e. 30 years running the first, now demolished chicken house.

He also bred pedigree bulls for a substantial number of years.

Based on his previous experience with the hens has said that he wants his young son, not yet 30 with a wife and 2 children, to give up a good government job.

So based on that, a finanically viable agricultural unit could be as little as say 13 acres.

I do not know the size of his farm, but probably surprisingly small, since he bought the land when his other brother got the home farm.

I was surprised at his clear idea that his son did not need the Govt job..

But Brains beats brawn most times.

Edited August 29, 2019 by difflock

[Big J]

1 hour ago, Chalgravesteve said:

The "unproductive pasture" is your view of it. The landowner is not obliged to sell it. Money isn't everything. Just because you want to pay double the market rate for agricultural land, doesn't make it an attractive deal for the landowner. They may prefer to keep it for their 12 cows and the open view, rather than have some cash which earns them nothing in the bank. 

 

The only way that this would work, would be if there was a philathropic donator of the land, who would forgo the potential earnings for themselves, and allow you to buy at a reduced rate. In turn, the uplift in value should be returned to the next user of the property, so when you move out or die, the property reverts to the philantrophic trust and they put it back out as a low cost property for the next user. If they allowed a notional uplift in value whilst in your "ownership" equivalent to the amount of return that you would have had, had you had the cash in the bank instead, then you won't have lost out on the uplift in your savings money value but you won't be gaining the property uplift value (at the next owners expense) either!

 

I'm sure there won't be many takers though under that scenario!   

What you describe regarding a philanthropic land owner isn't a million miles away from what we'd like to do in the medium term building low cost housing in rural communities around us. High quality, well designed, eco friendly houses, built for key workers (teachers, emergency services, rural workers etc) built simply but smartly and brought to market below market rate. This would be partly on account of hopefully finding a land vendor with a philanthropic bent and partly by economising on the build by using modular systems. Such houses could be resold at any stage, but any increase in the asking price could only match overall national house price increases and should they choose to sell at full market rate, the excess profit would go directly to the community. It would be a covenant that would cover that. It's just an idea at this stage.

[Big J]

24 minutes ago, Stubby said:

That's a good thing Jonathan . My negative take on it stems from the Drongos that think its ok to walk around the woodland ( South Downs National Park ) , put their dog shite in a bag and leave it there , preserving it for all time  . I honestly think its better not to pick it up and let the slugs and insects deal with it rather than have all these little parcels of dog doo deposited along the track .   Sorry for the de rail .

I know the type! They expect the magic poo fairy to come collect them for you!

[Big J]

6 minutes ago, difflock said:

Re economical viability and scale "J"

A local farmer has just put up a new chicken house, to supply organic eggs to the London market, the hens need access to 12 acres, he with much previous experience,i.e. 30 years running the first, now demolished chicken house.

He also bred pedigree bulls for a substantial number of years.

Based on his previous experience with the hens has said that he wants his young son, not yet 30 with a wife and 2 children, to give up a good government job.

So based on that, a finanically viable agricultural unit could be as little as say 13 acres.

I do not know the size of his farm, but probably surprisingly small, since he bought the land when his other brother got the home farm.

I was surprised at his clear idea that his son did not need the Govt job..

But Brains beats brawn most times.

Fair enough, and the figures stated by the Financial Times suggest that poultry farms receive the lowest rate of subsidy. 

 

However, who wants to live anywhere near a chicken farm? It won't be so bad with organic hens on account of their extensive rearing, but that isn't a niche that occupies an especially significant market segment. I'm not saying that to disparage the chap, rather to say that yes, it's a viable land use, fantastic that he can make a living from 12 acres, but also that there are many other ways to support yourself from the land and the planning laws really only recognise keeping livestock.

[LeeGray]

8 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

That as it may be, it's part of a wider agricultural economy, but as far as planning goes, it is the only rural economy and the only land use that qualifies for the existing planning exemptions. The fact that farms are totally dependent on subsidy to survive exemplifies the need for a broader approach towards supporting rural businesses. According to the figures in the Financial Times *, lowland and upland grazing farms receive more than 90% of their income from farm subsidy, with cereal crops not far behind. Given the pesticide and fertiliser usage of such enterprises, I would argue that they aren't the most environmentally friendly means of making a living, or indeed the most profitable.

 

 

 

* The link doesn't appear to open, though I was able to read it by googling for it. 

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

WWW.FT.COM

 

 

 

We farm a lowland if marginal grass farm, use no pesticides or artificial fertiliser and don’t rely on subsidy for our income. There’s plenty others out there doing exactly the same too, many of them in your neck of the woods. I’d suggest subscribing to ‘the land’ magazine and joining the landworkers alliance to educate yourself a bit more broadly before telling people how they should farm or not and what defines a hobby or not. 

[Big J]

3 minutes ago, LeeGray said:

We farm a lowland if marginal grass farm, use no pesticides or artificial fertiliser and don’t rely on subsidy for our income. There’s plenty others out there doing exactly the same too, many of them in your neck of the woods. I’d suggest subscribing to ‘the land’ magazine and joining the landworkers alliance to educate yourself a bit more broadly before telling people how they should farm or not and what defines a hobby or not. 

Fair enough, but my original point remains, which is that broadly speaking, farming isn't profitable and whilst it's obviously crucially important that we produce our own food, it's just one part of the rural land economy and I strongly disagree with the privileged position that it occupies within planning law. 

[LeeGray]

Fair enough, my point would have to be if someone can move into a rural area and be granted planning permission on greenfield land because they have a £250,000 wage bill for there new business or there too tall for the local houses or they can’t afford to buy a big house with land and buildings or have £170,000 of machinery they’ve recently purchased or they don’t want to move kids schools then pretty much anyone could and would give it a go if they could get land for £5k/acre. 

 

Wether that’s good or bad I don’t know.

[Big J]

14 minutes ago, LeeGray said:

Fair enough, my point would have to be if someone can move into a rural area and be granted planning permission on greenfield land because they have a £250,000 wage bill for there new business or there too tall for the local houses or they can’t afford to buy a big house with land and buildings or have £170,000 of machinery they’ve recently purchased or they don’t want to move kids schools then pretty much anyone could and would give it a go if they could get land for £5k/acre. 

 

Wether that’s good or bad I don’t know.

I'm glad you're paying attention! ?

 

The wage bill is unusually high on this site as it's horrendously steep. Just checked the elevation finder and measured the distance and the slope is 125m from bottom to top and there is a height gain of 60m. 

 

Either way, the strongest argument that I have is that I want to make a productive contribution to the local rural economy but in order to continue developing the business, we need premises. I'm not asking for special treatment, rather to be considered on the same footing as a farm.

[difflock]

Ah, so you accept that farmers do not get special treatment then?

Edited August 29, 2019 by difflock

[Big J]

1 minute ago, difflock said:

Ah, so you accept that farmers do not get special treatment then?

They do. They get unique treatment in the eyes of planning. I am advocating that this is extended to other rural workers/businesses.