Big J on radio 4..

[Commando]

48 minutes ago, Big J said:

Yeah yeah! ?

 

I don't object (in principle) to some people owning a lot of land, but I object to none of that land being made available to people of lesser means. With more than 2.5 acres per man, woman and child in Devon, we're not short of the stuff. 

 

Nicola Sturgeon has often talked about land redistribution in Scotland (which has the most unequal land ownership in Europe, with fewer than 500 people owning half of all the land) and whilst I don't agree with land grabs, it's worth remembering that the ownership of the land is based on acquisition practices that would be regarded as abhorent now (the clearances, for example).

Yeah I agree in principle mate, I guess if you take subsidies then a condition of that should be some sort of access agreement?

 

[Paul in the woods]

2 hours ago, AHPP said:

Assuming the rules of supply and demand suddenly reverse from how they've been forever.

I'm assuming the laws of supply and demand remain the same. Say farm land is £10k an acre due to the demand from farmers. Allow anyone to build on it then the demand rises and the price will go up. Not to the same price as a building plot today but I bet it would be far more than £10k an acre.

 

Then you wonder who would buy it. Not your average person because you've instantly crashed the property market so there wouldn't be many places to borrow the money from. There's plenty of wealthy people with cash who would hoover up the land, probably not those who really need it though.

 

In order to make the land available to most people you'd need very strict laws governing who could buy what I'd guess - something you wouldn't be in favour?

[Conor Wright]

1 hour ago, Commando said:

Yeah I agree in principle mate, I guess if you take subsidies then a condition of that should be some sort of access agreement?

 

A better long term solution would be to phase out subsidies, causing farms to either improve, diversify or become competent at what they are doing and start turning a profit. Those that have been dossing and living off subsidies may well sell up, allowing more land and property to become available. Those that expand, improve or diversify (or all three)will generate employment, both direct and indirect which will benefit the local economies. A greater variety of foods will be produced closer to their markets, land will be maintained and utilised better, less profitable land will be forested as a long term, low input investment. More people with fresher ideas will be able to enter into land ownership and planners will be forced to accept the fact that people will need housing and small enterprises in the countryside which meets their requirements as residents and caretakers.

[Big J]

27 minutes ago, Paul in the woods said:

I'm assuming the laws of supply and demand remain the same. Say farm land is £10k an acre due to the demand from farmers. Allow anyone to build on it then the demand rises and the price will go up. Not to the same price as a building plot today but I bet it would be far more than £10k an acre.

 

Then you wonder who would buy it. Not your average person because you've instantly crashed the property market so there wouldn't be many places to borrow the money from. There's plenty of wealthy people with cash who would hoover up the land, probably not those who really need it though.

 

In order to make the land available to most people you'd need very strict laws governing who could buy what I'd guess - something you wouldn't be in favour?

I agree that it needs to be regulated and reformed. Having AOCs granted only on the basis of keeping livestock is nonsense. That is only a small part of rural land management and shouldn't have the monopoly on new building. Anyone working within the rural economy should have the right to suitable, affordable housing and business premises, not just those that keep animals. 

 

21 minutes ago, Conor Wright said:

A better long term solution would be to phase out subsidies, causing farms to either improve, diversify or become competent at what they are doing and start turning a profit. Those that have been dossing and living off subsidies may well sell up, allowing more land and property to become available. Those that expand, improve or diversify (or all three)will generate employment, both direct and indirect which will benefit the local economies. A greater variety of foods will be produced closer to their markets, land will be maintained and utilised better, less profitable land will be forested as a long term, low input investment. More people with fresher ideas will be able to enter into land ownership and planners will be forced to accept the fact that people will need housing and small enterprises in the countryside which meets their requirements as residents and caretakers.

 

I think phasing out the subsidies would be a great idea. The farm to the back of the site where we are presently working is run by a lovely couple whose method statement (as quoted) is "we're paid not to farm". So 180 acres in total, 20 of which is non-production woodland. They are on all sorts of countryside stewardship grants and as best I can tell have a small number of cows and earn the vast bulk of their income from the subsidies. There is some very pretty meadow, but it seems to me like a massively wasteful use of land as it doesn't actually produce anything and if environmental diversity was their goal, there are better things they could do (establish more woodland, establish wetland etc).

 

Either way, subsidy reduction and eventual elimination is something I'd support.

[difflock]

1 hour ago, Conor Wright said:

A better long term solution would be to phase out subsidies, causing farms to either improve, diversify or become competent at what they are doing and start turning a profit. Those that have been dossing and living off subsidies may well sell up, allowing more land and property to become available. Those that expand, improve or diversify (or all three)will generate employment, both direct and indirect which will benefit the local economies. A greater variety of foods will be produced closer to their markets, land will be maintained and utilised better, less profitable land will be forested as a long term, low input investment. More people with fresher ideas will be able to enter into land ownership and planners will be forced to accept the fact that people will need housing and small enterprises in the countryside which meets their requirements as residents and caretakers.

Like what happened in NZ then.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

56 minutes ago, Big J said:

I agree that it needs to be regulated and reformed. Having AOCs granted only on the basis of keeping livestock is nonsense. That is only a small part of rural land management and shouldn't have the monopoly on new building. Anyone working within the rural economy should have the right to suitable, affordable housing and business premises, not just those that keep animals. 

 

 

I think phasing out the subsidies would be a great idea. The farm to the back of the site where we are presently working is run by a lovely couple whose method statement (as quoted) is "we're paid not to farm". So 180 acres in total, 20 of which is non-production woodland. They are on all sorts of countryside stewardship grants and as best I can tell have a small number of cows and earn the vast bulk of their income from the subsidies. There is some very pretty meadow, but it seems to me like a massively wasteful use of land as it doesn't actually produce anything and if environmental diversity was their goal, there are better things they could do (establish more woodland, establish wetland etc).

 

Either way, subsidy reduction and eventual elimination is something I'd support.

I was going to mention it last time you highlighted the inappropriate, ineffective, mis-targeted and hugely expensive current farm subsidy system J. Not sure if it was in this thread or a different one - but not really important. 

 

You do, i hope, recognise that the very best, perhaps only, way of achieving meaningful reform of farm subsidy is to LEAVE the EU?

 

Ive posted it before but some may not have seen it (I think the data is getting old now. I looked at a local farm Sunday night and it only showed data up to 2009). Google “farmsubsidy.org”, select UK (or other as suits), go to the page search feature, enter the surname, business name or post code of any registered farm and you’ll see what subsidies they’ve had. 

 

Caused quite a stir stir in the pub when I told a local farmer what they’d had in “benefits.”  They were outraged that I should know (and tell) such detail. 

 

Public money = public information 

 

Next time you hear a poor farmer complaining about how hard done by they are folks might like to ask them to explain how much money they got from the tax payer....

Edited August 28, 2019 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Did you ever look up if you have a Neighbourhood Development Plan J? 

 

For my area the plan plan is here:

 

http://www.planliskeard.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/LISKEARD-NDP-SEPTEMBER-2018.pdf

 

flick to p34, policy EM7 Small Workshop Development in
the Countryside

 for a good example of what you might consider lobbying for if your area is developing an NDP. 

 

Dreadful boring read but essential to understand and be engaged with local NDP if you have personal or business aspirations to build in a given area. 

 

Mr Pedantic here read and digested our local NDP (painful but necessary) prior to quoting the relevant sections to the Town Council at the planning meeting - unanimous support for our recent application they couldn’t really do otherwise since to do so would be to poop on their own NDP ?  

[Big J]

11 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I was going to mention it last time you highlighted the inappropriate, ineffective, mis-targeted and hugely expensive current farm subsidy system J. Not sure if it was in this thread or a different one - but not really important. 

 

You do, i hope, recognise that the very best, perhaps only, way of achieving meaningful reform of farm subsidy is to LEAVE the EU?

 

Ive posted it before but some may not have seen it (I think the data is getting old now. I looked at a local farm Sunday night and it only showed data up to 2009). Google “farmsubsidy.org”, select UK (or other as suits), go to the page search feature, enter the surname, business name or post cost of any registered farm and you’ll see what subsidies they’ve had. 

 

Caused quite a stir stir in the pub when I told a local farmer what they’d had in “benefits.”  They were outraged that I should know (and tell) such detail. 

 

Public money = public information 

 

Next time you hear a poor farmer complaining about how hard done by they are folks might like to ask them to explain how much money they got from the tax payer....

I do agree, and the subsidy aspect of farming isn't something I agree with. I'm not every personally had a grant for anything though I expect that we'll apply for one to help with the cost of a harvester next year. If you can't beat them...

 

I don't want to get drawn into an EU discussion with regards to this, as land management, equality and housing is something the UK has much room for improvement with, and isn't something where the blame can be squared at anyone, but for successive government's mismanagement and poor policy. 

 

However, it's worth noting that the average farm is profitable to the tune of around £28500, of which over £24000 is subsidy. This seems wrong to me, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, Big J said:

I do agree, and the subsidy aspect of farming isn't something I agree with. I'm not every personally had a grant for anything though I expect that we'll apply for one to help with the cost of a harvester next year. If you can't beat them...

 

I don't want to get drawn into an EU discussion with regards to this, as land management, equality and housing is something the UK has much room for improvement with, and isn't something where the blame can be squared at anyone, but for successive government's mismanagement and poor policy. 

 

However, it's worth noting that the average farm is profitable to the tune of around £28500, of which over £24000 is subsidy. This seems wrong to me, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Totally agree 2nd ½, not so much the first ½, but as you say, that’s a different kettle of fishing quotas ?

[Big J]

2 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Did you ever look up if you have a Neighbourhood Development Plan J? 

 

For my area the plan plan is here:

 

http://www.planliskeard.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/LISKEARD-NDP-SEPTEMBER-2018.pdf

 

flick to p34, policy EM7 Small Workshop Development in
the Countryside

 for a good example of what you might consider lobbying for if your area is developing an NDP. 

 

Dreadful boring read but essential to understand and be engaged with local NDP if you have personal or business aspirations to build in a given area. 

 

Mr Pedantic here read and digested our local NDP (painful but necessary) prior to quoting the relevant sections to the Town Council at the planning meeting - unanimous support for our recent application they couldn’t really do otherwise since to do so would be to poop on their own NDP ?  

I think the main issue would be:

 

"it is located within or adjacent to existing groups of buildings."

 

This would be unlikely to be the case for us. If there are existing buildings, then you'd have either a barn (convertable under Class Q) or a house. In either of those cases, PP for another barn wouldn't be too painful to obtain.

 

In an ideal world, I'd be looking for 2-10 acres on the edge of a village in order to use 1-2 acres of it for a house, barns, workshop and garden, and then I'd plant the remainder as woodland. I don't really want to be in the middle of nowhere as it's a long walk to the pub, but equally being right in a village wouldn't be fair on other residents as tractors and other machines aren't quiet.