Big J on radio 4..

[eggsarascal]

4 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

Hypothetical scenario: 

 

I buy 10 acres of relatively unproductive farmland at twice the market rate. That'd cost me £120-150k around here. Even after CGT, the landowner has still received almost 50% more than the market rate, and the chances are that the farmland wasn't earning them a penny. And probably grant funded.

 

I take the farmland, build a house, build a few agricultural sheds to support my business and plant the remaining 10 acres with a fast growing biomass species like poplar. The 2 acres of house/sheds supports my forestry business (which is presently paying out £4-5k a week in wages to cutters/harvester operator, thus supporting the local and broader economy) which is exclusively based on work within an hour radius of the house, and the 8 acres of hybrid poplar (when meticulously managed and thinned can attain 50t/hectare/year) gives a roadside value of annually of £7500 (before harvesting costs) as well as all the associated carbon capture benefits.

 

So, the original landowner makes more than they would have if it had been sold simply as farmland, the land becomes productive again, and 4/5 of it is forested and under management, with the whole site providing a multifaceted economic output that is beneficial not just to myself, but to others in the locality.

 

I'm just one small fish, it should be added. There will be thousands of people in Devon in similar situations to me, and I don't think it's a bad thing if there are more non-agricultural small holdings like the idea I'm proposing.

And if/when you come to sell it you want market value who's lost out?

[Big J]

1 minute ago, eggsarascal said:

And if/when you come to sell it you want market value who's lost out?

With AOCs, there is a lengthy period of time between construction of the property and the point at which it can be sold on the open market. 10 or 15 years I believe. Before that, it can only be sold to other people who would qualify to occupy an AOC.

[LeeGray]

25 minutes ago, Big J said:

Yes, but there is no economic argument for having a dozen cows. They're pets, a luxury, something that you choose to do for your own personal reasons. Given that farming on a commercial scale is barely profitable, hobby farming certainly isn't, and given that preferential planning conditions are a form of economic support, I don't believe that preferential planning should be given for people in your situation. You're not running a business of the back of these dozen cows. 

 

Given that rural communities only prosper when they are economically self sustaining and successful, I would like to see planning law change to make it easier for businesses like mine to permanently establish themselves on land in the same way that a traditional farm does.

How do you know what I do? My cows pay my mortgage. 

[eggsarascal]

I'm going to move to the Staffordshire moorlands, insist that the lanes should be bashed through to create better access for the vehicles I've chosen to buy, that land should be sold off for less than its market value and I should be able to build what I want on said land to accommodate my family and the machinery I have. Get in the real world, you'll be telling us next that you should get the services laid for free because you employ a handful of blokes.

Edited August 29, 2019 by eggsarascal

[Chalgravesteve]

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!   

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, Big J said:

I think that's a bit of a negative view to take on it. 

 

I use the example of a woodland we're working in in October. 22 acres owned by one family from a small village. He lets anyone from the village walk around and use it, and it's completely unblighted by litter or dog poo.

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 .

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stubby

[ESS]

1 hour ago, Big J said:

Yes, but there is no economic argument for having a dozen cows. They're pets, a luxury, something that you choose to do for your own personal reasons. Given that farming on a commercial scale is barely profitable, hobby farming certainly isn't, and given that preferential planning conditions are a form of economic support, I don't believe that preferential planning should be given for people in your situation. You're not running a business of the back of these dozen cows. 

 

Given that rural communities only prosper when they are economically self sustaining and successful, I would like to see planning law change to make it easier for businesses like mine to permanently establish themselves on land in the same way that a traditional farm does.

Someone could have a dozen pedigree cattle of the right bloodlines and be in a very strong position financially. 

You are making statements about something you know little about.

[Stubby]

13 minutes ago, ESS said:

Someone could have a dozen pedigree cattle of the right bloodlines and be in a very strong position financially. 

You are making statements about something you know little about.

Like Adam on C/File with his rare White Parks ?  He can't be short of a bob !

Edited August 29, 2019 by Stubby

[ESS]

3 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Like Adam on C/File with his rare Whit Parks ?  He can't be short of a bob !

Ha ha,sure hes not. If someone had the right line of Limosin, Belgian blue.Charollais, etc. the return would be attractive from a dozen head.A look at the pedigree sales results for somewhere like Carlisle mart would confirm this.

Semen sales alone from a high class bull can run into tens of thousands a year.

Far too many people make assumptions about farm subsidies without knowing the facts.

[Big J]

1 hour ago, LeeGray said:

How do you know what I do? My cows pay my mortgage. 

 

17 minutes ago, ESS said:

Someone could have a dozen pedigree cattle of the right bloodlines and be in a very strong position financially. 

You are making statements about something you know little about.

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

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Big J