Big J

My understanding is that there is a minimum time period you have to keep the kit for before you sell it, or else you're obliged to pay the grant back. It was 6 years for the grants relating to the sawmilling in Scotland, but ESS said it's 4 years down here.

Yes, but it only the farms that have a monopoly on rural planning, which was the original point I was making. Not saying that this is the fault of the farmers, but it is to the exclusion of the rest of us.

I have not said that for a moment. The field that we are working from (it's at the foot of the stand we are working in) belongs to a dairy farmer who never, ever seems to stop working. My issue is that some people abuse the system, and the system is indeed ripe for abuse as the benefits afforded to farms are unique and if you know the system, quite lucrative.

Possibly. I've just been torturing myself (and my wife) looking at houses there. It's a complete dead stop restart though. Getting going in Devon (whilst it hasn't been without it's challenges) has been easier. It comes down to family really. We see much, much more of them now and that's what's important to us and our daughters.

Can we just agree that the grant/subsidy/regulation element of farming is unfit for purpose? The whole system would work better if everyone just earned what they earned rather than having to jump through a 1001 hoops to get subsidies A through Z and in order not to fall foul of regulations C though T and not have fines F through Z imposed on them? I'm exhausted just discussing it on here, and I haven't even applied for anything yet! ?

Fair enough. If I did grant fund something like a harvester, the vast bulk of the value of my machines would still be privately funded by me. Yes the work would be done by someone else, of course, but that's always going to be the case in any industry. I'd argue it would be much better value than leaving people on benefits, as as well as the direct employment, the supply chain benefits are extensive, and for a circa £10k/yr grant funding requirement (if you divided the £60k over the 6 year period that I believe that you need to keep the machine for), the revenue benefit in income tax throughout the supply chain would exceed that . I'm sure some farm subsidies do go towards jobs, but those subsidies that effectively pay farmers not to farm are clearly not included in this.

I respectfully disagree. I've been in forestry/sawmilling for 10 years now. I've never grant funded anything. When I was milling up in Scotland, every single other sawmill in ASHS (Association of Scottish Hardwood Sawmillers) that I worked with in my area who was on a similar level to me had extensive grant funding for new kit. Sawmills, kilns, barns etc. We consciously chose not to do that. Down here, I was eligable for grant funding for the forwarder, but didn't take it up as it wouldn't have fitted with the timescale for when we needed it. If I got grant funding for something like a harvester (usually 40%) then that would directly result in an employed position, and the production from such a machine would likely produce additional subcontractual work (and possibly directly employed) for more people too. This wouldn't be low paid work, rather £20/hr for chainsaw operatives or a bit less for machine operators. I'm not saying that I'm not being hypocritical as regards to this, but my point is that if the government coughs up £60k or something for 40% of a harvester, and it creates an employed position worth £200k over 6 years (that was the length of the last grant term, IIRC), as well as additional employment beyond that, I'd say it's pretty good value for money, especially compared to grants that subsidise farming.

Fair point I suppose. I don't think that planning law as regards to construciton should be conflated with what would be a public order offence (is that how you'd classify it?) if someone lived like a pig. I was saying to my wife today that I'd honestly be open to other proposals for planning reform (I've already stated my own preference). In Germany, you categorically cannot build outside of designated new development zones (at least in terms of permanent or primary housing - holiday homes/cabins are more widely permitted). However, every village has one, and there is a wide choice of affordable plots. They are also very keen on Gewerbegebiets (industry/business areas) too. Years ago, when we were still thinking of moving over there, we identified a nice alpine village not far from my Uncles called Allenbach, which had both a Neubaugebiet and a Gewerbegebiet. You could have bought a nice quarter acre plot for (what was then, in the heady days where a pound got you 1.35 Euros) about £30k and the industrial land was a bit cheaper, per square metre. I wouldn't mind necessarily being in a village here, or having my business premises away from my home in a little industrial yard. That seems like an even more unlikely option than my first choice though, especially as I'd like to own both rather than rent.

Pretty much the only grant available to woodland owners now is the WIG, at £100/hectare per year. And also I suppose the £1000 one of payment for writing a woodland management plan. Yes there have been more lucrative grants in the past supporting forestry, but they are now almost non-existent. I appreciate that the tax incentives regarding roundwood timber sales and inheritance tax also exist, but they sill pale into insignificance by comparison to those that benefit those that farm.

I don't begrudge it either. What I begrudge is the special privileges afforded to them. In the UK it seems that the only form of land management valued is farming. That's probably why we have such low forest cover. Forestry is of equal importance, and should be equally valued. With the widespread take up of RHI accredited schemes, undertaking a planting scheme with the stated intent of providing quickly grown biomass seems very sustainable to me. Especially given that installations such as KRE are sucking up timber from all over the south of the UK, with plenty of higher grade timber ending up being chipped for lack of alternative. I would personally define a small holding as a small holding of rural land. It's sustainably managed to provide an income, or at the very least doesn't cost the tax payer anything. I don't see the justification for wanting to take on a small plot of land and then exploiting grant funding to subsidise some distortion of the Good Life.

Get some measurements. A 3ft diameter beech is a good deal heavier than 2t. You can get SP over a barrel with these things. An estate we used to work with near Aviemore granted permission for about 50t of birch to be felled on their land on one condition. That is was cut to length, split and stacked in their woodstore. Yes, 50t. And there was some excess, which was neatly stacked to the side as well. I'd say grant permission for the felling on the condition that they cut (to your specifications, so milling grade separated out from firewood) the timber and extract it to roadside. As regards value, firewood from trees that size is unlikely to be of good quality, so £35-40t is about the maximum I think you'd attain. You might get £80/t for the butts, but more like £60 would be likely. There just isn't much demand for beech. Find your local sawmill on the ASHS (Association of Scottish Hardwood Sawmillers) and approach them. I doubt any single mill would want more than one load though.

Anything we built would not be an eyesore. For starters, you would be unlikely to see it as it would surrounded by woodland (that we planted). Secondly, whether it's the German in me or what, but I cannot stand mess. When I ran the sawmill, it was meticulously organised. I would completely understand anyone objecting to an eyesore, but that would not be me. Self build is the administration of the build of your house, according to your specifications. Whether that is you building it yourself, with your own hands, or contracting in someone else to do it. You are still in charge of the build. As regards the kit houses, check out the Danwood website. They have over a hundred different designs, which are highly customisable. You have a choice there that no mass developer here would offer, and very few if any would match the U values.

Very true. I am an antisocial (some might go so far as to say grumpy!) bastard, so I'd probably not go for a bunch of screaming children in my woods! I was using that example to illustrate the potential uses. A good friend is a FC ranger in Central Scotland and she runs a class called Tots in Trees some Saturdays and it's really well attended. Building dens, camp fires, walking nature trails etc.

Agreed. I accept that I'm in a possibly unique position with my wife's profession and me being a semi retired sawmiller. That said, I'd still probably just buy a kit house as it only takes 14 weeks to build! Danwood do some really nice, and reasonably priced houses. We would probably go for their model "Point 227" with a few minor modifications.

All of those scenarios involve the potential homeowner buying a house from someone else, rather than buying a plot and instructing a build themselves. This is the distinction, and because we (as prospective homeowners) are collectively disinterested in self build, we allow the parameters of what constitutes a standard quality house to be dictated to us. By that I mean room sizes, natural light, solar shading, quality of materials, environmental credentials etc. These standards are obviously very low, and are set by local government, which gains enormously from planning gain. The whole system is completely corrupt.

Which is unjustifiable, if you think about. It would mean that 100% of newly constructed rural housing is essentially luxury housing, with zero provision for the affordable sector. Just our lane has 2 Class Qs, with a third at the planning stage. That's out of about 12 houses.

My profit doesn't amount to 50% of turnover and I provide a quality product. UK housebuilders build shitty little rabbit hutches and charge as much as possible for them. This is because we can't be arsed getting involved in the construction of our own houses, with the self build rate being just 8%. It averages over 50% in Europe, with Austria seeing almost 90%. We've a marvellously contradictory attiude towards new housing. Communities fight it (understandably so, because almost without exception, all new house builders build terrible houses to the absolute minimal standard regs will permit) but don't collaborate to instigate owner/occupier led self build projects. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on why the UK is so dependent on Developer housing, but my theory is that it has been culturally programmed into us since the start of the industrial revolution, when the industrialists provided wide scale housing for the workers. We've not traditionally built our own houses for 2 centuries, whereas the advent of the industrial revolution occured later in other European countries and not to the same extent. I really, really, really, really hate developer houses. They are simply appalling and we desperately (as a country) need to kick this industry into the long grass. This is going to take a substantial policy shift with planning though, as large developers are given preferential treatment.

I really enjoy a ruddy good debate. ?

But the increase in the perceived value of land is only serving to accentuate the wealth gap and inequality in the UK. Small holdings are a long standing tradition, and economically viable when correctly managed. For instance, if I planted 10 acres of hybrid poplar, I could realise an annual return of around £9k from thinning operations every 3 years. That is more profitable than many farms operating on the same area. There is also ample potential for income diversification, in terms of forest schools/nurseries, camp sites, glamping etc.

Not at all. If we were to buy an existing house, not only would we have to settle for something that is likely to be of shoddy construction, but I'd be paying literally double the actual construction/complete project price. The only distinction is that someone in the planning office has decided to grant permission for a dwelling to be built, and as a result of this decision, the value suddenly increases by hundreds of thousands of pounds. Given that the rules regarding planning consent are inconsistent, unfit for purpose, discriminatory and arduous, there is huge scope for reform. An interesting point aside, but the Class Q exemption that allows a barn to be converted to a house I would wager has been exploited tens of thousands of times nationally. I wonder how many of those houses could be considered affordable? My point is that it's the most significant shift in rural planning in the last decade and it exclusively benefits those with much higher than average wealth.

Haha! A very common misconception. Unless you are an architect involved with large, corporate builds like PPIs, architects get paid peanuts. My brother was earning more as a civil engineer within a year of uni, than my wife ever has from architecture. The only way to make a decent buck from it without selling your soul to the devil is to go into private property development, which we plan to eventually do.

You're missing the point though. The nonsense that is the market rate in the UK is driven by the ever increasing 'value' of property. People are only having to spend more on rent as they are priced out of purchasing these properties. I can afford premises at market rate, but refuse to pay it as it doesn't represent value for money. All it does is concentrate yet more wealth in the hands of a few, very rich individuals. Much more provision needs to be made for small and medium sized businesses to own their own premises instead of having to resort to renting for wealthy property magnates. I would have no problem whatsoever with a broad increase in the building of industrial and business units in the UK. We have a proud history of manufacturing which is now firmly in the past. In order to compete in a post Brexit, post Trump (trade wars) world, a little self reliance would not go amiss, as well as a broadened economy not so dependent on the service sector.

I do not think so. Planning law is starting to evolve and we are pretty determined. We have been told (by a planning officer) that restarting a sawmill would give us reasonable grounds for a rural workers property, so whether you agree or disagree with that, it's an option for us. I'd far sooner spend £100k setting up a productive mill again with an employee to run it than gift £300-350k to the enigmatically indescribable phenomenon that is "market rate". At least a sawmill will turn a profit.

We had a yard of similar size about 15 miles outside of Edinburgh when we had the sawmill and it was £1200/month. That was fairly cheap for the area. It comprised of just under an acre of yard space and a variety of barns and covered space totalling around 700 square metres. Mostly in a terrible state of repair (to the point where the main one was impossible to keep dry in rain storms and we had to install a hefty bilge pump) and the rent went to an unscrupulous Estate whose forestry, farming and environmental policy was deplorable. You might be able to get a yard for £500/month, but that is well below what is typical.

Very few of them around here, and I'd be tied to renting at £4-5 per square foot per year. Money down the toilet. If I won that amount on the lottery (I'd have to play it to start with!) then I would probably stop doing forestry and start the aforementioned sustainable, affordable housing company. I enjoy forestry, but it would be a better use of my wife's skills to build proper houses, and we'd make more of a difference long term. The issue is starting capital for a venture like that, which isn't something we have, and won't have for some time. Or buy an island with no one living on it so I didn't have to speak to anyone. I haven't decided yet! I fecking hate livestock. I can't imagine anything worse than being bound to your farm by a bunch of smelly, demanding, farty cows that cost you money and need daily attention. Trees are much easier