kevinjohnsonmbe

Legend!!

That's my gripe! The so called subsidy, in many cases, doesn't even go to the person working the land so it's no help to the hill farmer trying to eek out an existence! National Trust, Royal estate, very wealthy landowners, they all get the dosh so it doesn't even help the working farmer! The land valued subsidies are even traded and land sold but not with subsidy rights if I understand correctly?? How is thT not corrupt? How is it that the NAO allow this?

From what started off as a Dangerous Agricultural / Forestry Vehicles thread, we seem to have desended into a verbal bashing of the agricultural sector. I don't think that was the original intention and it's not altogether positive, although I do think it is indicative of an increasing isolation of the agriculture sector from public support. If we take some of the vitriolic rhetoric that has been posted in the thread so far (both for and against) and consider it in the context of the forum membership, where it might be the case that a fair majority of contributors are outdoorsy / rural folk with an understanding of country life, it's even more of a potential concern. For my part, I am not a farmer but I am surrounded by farms and have a fair working knowledge of the systems. My friends and neighbours are farmers and I live on the outskirts of a market town. I deeply disagree with some of the recent policies and practices of the NFU - the stance on neonicotinoid pesticides, the badger cull, to name just 2 recent examples. Fox hunting is another classic example of alienation from broad public support although it's not an activity I have an issue with. It could be that those 3 examples give rise to excitable debate in their own right but that's not my intention in this thread - leave that for another day, another place - I mention them only as key examples of the ag sector alienating itself from public support. The problem that needs to be sorted (IMHO) is the subsidy system (in so far as I understand it - and I'd be really chuffed if someone with 1st hand knowledge can illuminate me if I've got this wrong.) How can this be right: BBC News - Rich landowners paid millions in farming subsidies I respect and admire the hardworking farmer that gets out and toils in all weather, anyone that grafts deserves a fair return on their efforts. If the article above is a true reflection of the current subsidy system, then it's broken, corrupt, and entirely misplaced. Anyone got any details that can either corroborate or correct the picture painted by this article?

:thumbup1:

:thumbup1:

Great find! You gotta love the little gems!!

Ah, ok! You're probably more up to speed with that as you're in it at the mo, I only watch the commercial tariff with a passing interest. Still, would be a brave call to think there's no way it could be reduced / removed.... Who knows, we might end up with a UKIP government the way things are going then it'll be even fuller steam ahead with tracking!

The potential for future drops in the RHI rate should be built into your business model as an inevitable liability. Look at the Raison d'être for the RHI - it exists to encourage the move from fossil fuel to renewable sources. It's an incentive to invest and reduce carbon emissions. It is inevitable that as more take the plunge, the rates will fall because the RHI has done it's job - incentivised! There is a finite amount of funding allocated to the RHI system. Once the trigger points for spending have been breached, the levels are reduced - that detail comes out from DECC in a news release periodically. A slightly different scenario, but look at solar PV rates. They were over generous to start with which resulted in unforeseen massive take-up (including companies that would supply & install for free so long as they got the FiT.) Consequence - significant drop in tariff and increased qualifying criteria. If install project figures are so tight as to rely upon the RHI (at it's current level) there are likely to be some deals to be had when over commitment leads to bankruptcy and asset dumping.

Farming still the most dangerous industry - Farmers Weekly Is it the machinery or the operator that creates the hazard?

Light blue touch paper and stand well back.......

There was a separate report of stock loose on the same road. Too much of a coincidence not to be the same incident?

Double beauty!

That'll smart! :thumb up: Alternative, a soapy shower with bubba.... I'd have tried harder to find the money!

Absolutely! Here's a photo snatch from dash cam from this afternoon..... Very lucky someone wasn't killed. There are surely enough concessions for ag vehicles already, continued carelessness or ignorance will eventually put paid to the concessions.

If as reported in the press was true (big if!), householder was hit for a "proceeds of crime" penalty on top of TPO penalty because of the increase in value to the house by removing the tree and gaining a sea view from the hot tub!

Yes, thanks Chris. Would you recommend changing the fairly standard question from arb to LA from "are there any TPOs at X location?" To "Are there any TPOs and/or extant planning conditions at X location?" Not something I've really done before but worth a thought for the future!

This 'caution' thing is an interesting development. Would it be accurate to say the person being 'offered' the caution has to agree to accepting it? Also, the planning conditions on a development - if a development (single house or multiple) gains consent and is built / altered but planning conditions are applied to the trees / gardens / landscape etc, who would be liable if they were breached - householder or the person doing the tree / garden / landscape work? It's easy enough to check for TPO / CA, it starts to get a bit admin heavy if the arb has to check planning history and conditions as well?

Don't matter where! Just let me know WHEN!!!

Responses so far, some funny and brutally honest in an unfortunate set of circumstances, some that reflect the current shortfalls in local government funding, some brutally pessimistic. There but for the grace of God! What are your options? (A) Come clean, talk to TO, explain that you'd been given to believe there was no TPO, say you'd been misled, describe as best as possible the decline in the tree, maybe even offer to undertake replanting at no charge it customer supplies stock. (May just show some willingness to make a mends and acknowledge your error??) (B ) Adopt a low profile and await the outcome. If it were me I'd try and take the forward approach. Good luck, be interesting to hear how it goes. I wonder if the TO is reading this thread?? That could bite you in the backside if it goes pear shaped.

Harsh! How on earth did he see it wasn't connected? Was that the reason he pulled you over (if so, he must have had super vision to see it wasn't connected whilst you were moving) Or did he find it after he'd pulled you over??

Tom, I'm a year into one particular task - a row of TPO'd Mont pine in a paddock. Not woodland / forest. It could be a classic example of a contradiction to your point above (without wishing to upset the apple cart!) about getting too hung up on the detail. It does exceed 1/4ly allowances and it's not subject to any exemptions. It does require a licence (and TPO approval.) Also the point made earlier about "...if it's sectioned down it doesn't need a licence, FC are not interested.." Is completely spurious. For that to be a true statement, there'd need to be another exemption - "section felling!" Agreed, there is too much scope for interpretation between different Gov / Quango departments and too much red tape but in this case I'm working on, the local politics and NIMBYs are out in full force. I've had to ensure all my "I"s are dotted and "t"s crossed because they are all over the regs and trying all sorts of capers (including direct action) to try and interfere. It's straight forward so far as I can see, if you don't satisfy the exemptions, you need a licence. If you need a licence and you don't get one... Well, I rather not find out how that pans out!

Nice one Monkey! That seems to cover it. I recall seeing it in a simple table format but that was a good while ago and no doubt the regs have been "matured" into a document the size of the bible by now!!

That's what I'd have thought.... The school trees thread........ Are you gnashing your teeth???? ???

Agreed! I think many are discarding (or even worse, paying to discard) what could in fact be a revenue source. Maybe it's a 'scale' thing, I only run part time so I'm not swamped, but either myself or one of the lads (as part payment or adll bonus) take all our log for firewood.

It ain't on Jon!