Why bother? I just use the main land use code for the majority of the field e.g. if I have 9 ha of wheat & 1 ha of AB1 nectar flower plot in a 10 ha field, I just put 10 ha of wheat.
BPS 2020
- Thread starter Adeptandy
- Start date
Why bother? I just use the main land use code for the majority of the field e.g. if I have 9 ha of wheat & 1 ha of AB1 nectar flower plot in a 10 ha field, I just put 10 ha of wheat.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I am lucky enough to have been helped by the Worcester CS Lead Advisor on several occasions, with whom I have had many conversations on this subject and who has helped on making sure we are one of the first to get paid for our CS every time.
It helps them to understand what and where we are claiming when they compare what our BPS forms show against our CS forms. It means they then require far less, if any supplementary evidence, before we can get paid.
I can assure you that the CS team do check for consistency of what we show on our CS applications with our BPS applications every time!
Therefore, now that Natural England had been taken over by RPA, it would make perfect sense to them for us to be able to use the CS codes for the BPS forms.
It doesn’t surprise me that so many farmers complain that they always get paid late, sometimes years late, when they clearly are not making CS’s job any easier by not showing separate areas of a field as Wheat and Nectar plots for BPS!
If we can make the RPA live’s and tasks easier, we all benefit.
Hmm. I'll ask a couple of people "in the know" if that actually is the case. I would certainly not have bothered in the past when NE were administering the CS.
When it says "as per the rest of field cropping" that gives me a clue. Give me a couple of days and I'll see if I can verify that you're right.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I know that many farmers use an agent to do applications for them. However, it does surprise me that they don’t do it themselves as it isn’t rocket science and it doesn’t cost any fees for doing so.
What is more, how can any agent know exactly what is going on where, better than we do?
Ironically, officially I act as agent for the farms that I manage. For which I don’t get a separate fee as this is part of my job and service.
You cannot make a mistake on-line, without RPA warning you that there is an Under or Over claimed area.
I always tackle the BPS application first then go on to the CS application.
One thing I absolutely do not do is to submit either claim until both are completed and 100% agree with each other!
One of the reasons why I made contact with the Worcester CS Lead Advisor, was because it wasn’t until this year that we are able to do the CS application on-line as opposed to the paper version. Now that we can, what a huge benefit this has become!
What is more, how can any agent know exactly what is going on where, better than we do?
Ironically, officially I act as agent for the farms that I manage. For which I don’t get a separate fee as this is part of my job and service.
You cannot make a mistake on-line, without RPA warning you that there is an Under or Over claimed area.
I always tackle the BPS application first then go on to the CS application.
One thing I absolutely do not do is to submit either claim until both are completed and 100% agree with each other!
One of the reasons why I made contact with the Worcester CS Lead Advisor, was because it wasn’t until this year that we are able to do the CS application on-line as opposed to the paper version. Now that we can, what a huge benefit this has become!
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I think you will find that despite the official address to send any evidence or paperwork to, Covall Hall at Worcester is one of the if not the main CS offices that deal with all CS claims (perhaps you could ask your people “in the know”?).
You may be able to get away with what you have done, but it does make it so much easier for the CS department if you were to use the FA01 or TG01 codes for crops such as AB1 Nectar Flower mixes.
I can assure you that even when CS was Natural England, they still did compare what your BPS application showed, every time. This was actually the reason that originally lead me be introduced to the CS Lead Advisor in the first place.
One thing I will say about the CS team is that they have always been incredible keen and helpful. I was worried that once NE became part of RPA, that this helpfulness would disappear. So much so in fact, that I had often thought that what they have done for me is beyond the pale! But I’m very pleased to say that it hasn’t and that are just as keen and helpful. Especially so, when we can demonstrate that we are trying to make their tasks easier when identifying separate crop areas within NG land areas.
Main reason is that agents can insure against error whereas we can't.
Nevertheless, due to habit and nostalgia, still doing all my own.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Before it went on-line, we used to get an agent to check our paper BPS/IACS forms. But they never found anything wrong and it did end up costing a lot of money just for the privilege of their insurance, which I had to sign something saying in effect that if I had made a mistake, we weren’t covered!
Then when it all went on-line, you cannot make a mistake anyway, so we no longer get an agent involved.
4course
Member
- Location
- north yorks
4course
Member
- Location
- north yorks
another reason we dont use buffer strips on the home farm is that having a contingent of horses on the place we have rides around the fields where we can without compromising the 2m from any hedge etc which means it is impossible to keep horses off any buffer strip should there be one ,plus the horses pay better than any cereal crop and I dont think we are allowed to ride on buffer strips
Unfortunately you can, only too easily, where guidance notes conflict.
Already had this, more than once, with the RPA and the Forestry Commission.
Take, for example, the eligibility criteria set for new woodland creation for BPS under RD01.
Forestry Commission sells the scheme on the basis that BPS is retained.
RPA then issues new guidance which says that Woodland Creation may be eligible for BPS but only subject to certain conditions :-
(1) To be eligible under RD01 it is essential first to register all new woodland creation parcels as being ineligible. (WO12).
(2) Any parcels not registered by the applicant before the closing date of 15th May as being ineligible for BPS (WO 12) will then automatically become ineligible for BPS (WO12).
(3) However, any parcels which have been registered before the closing date of 15th May as being ineligible for BPS because they are WO12 will then automatically become eligible for BPS (RD01).
Work that one out!
Last edited:
Hesston4860s
Member
- Location
- Nr Lincoln
Unfortunately you can, only too easily, where guidance notes conflict.
Already had this, more than once, with the RPA and the Forestry Commission.
Take, for example, the eligibility criteria set for new woodland creation for BPS under RD01.
Forestry Commission sells the scheme on the basis that BPS is retained.
RPA then issues new guidance which says that Woodland Creation may be eligible for BPS but only subject to certain conditions :-
(1) To be eligible under RD01 it is essential first to register all new woodland creation parcels as being ineligible. (WO12).
(2) Any parcels not registered by the applicant before the closing date of 15th May as being ineligible for BPS (WO 12) will then automatically become ineligible for BPS (WO12).
(3) However, any parcels which have been registered before the closing date of 15th May as being ineligible for BPS because they are WO12 will then automatically become eligible for BPS (RD01).
Work that one out!
The Rpa also state that land under FWPS agreements must of been used with entitlements to claim SPS in 2008, in 2008 NO land under any FWPS agreement was eligible in anyway to claim SPS !.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Trivial point but are you sure? If I recall land under FWPS could be used for set-aside in 2008. And if used as set-aside the area forwent the FWPS payment but attracted the SPS entitlement payment as that land for that year (2008) was classed as arable in set aside. I might be wrong and am happy to be corrected. But as it is 12 years ago a point of trivia. Sorry, very sad, almost anal reply.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Very good. Understand. As I indicated in earlier post each to their own and I was just curious. Cheers.
4course
Member
- Location
- north yorks
curiosity killed the cat they say but seems on here unlike a lot of places most of us can exchange views and opinions etc just as we would with a mate in the pub and long may it continue esp as now we cant go
Hesston4860s
Member
- Location
- Nr Lincoln
you are correct that it could be used with set aside entitlements, but they state SPS entitlements which they claim are different from set aside entitlements (I’m only going on what they say) !. They say that it was eligible for SPS in 2008 but they haven’t taken into account the Various rule changes over the life of the schemes, where as later schemes where eligible to claim both SPS and FWPS But not until a rule change after sometime after 2008.
Theres even a clause in the post 1st jan 2000 contracts that you cannot claim
“I/We undertake that if accepted into the FWPS, I/We will: not apply for, or seek, additional financial support in respect of agricultural income forgone as a result of the conversion of agricultural land to woodland under the scheme.”
Now in my situation it makes no odds anyway, as in 2008 I couldn’t claim SPS (it was ineligible) I also didnt need any set aside as I would be classed as a small producer under 19.48ha so exempt from the requirement for set aside. And I don’t have that clause in my contracts !.
They are applying later rules to an earlier date, and it just can’t work like that as we don’t own a time machine !.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Hi, thank you for such a comprehensive reply on a point of trivia! I had not appreciated the complications at the time. Goodness seems a long time ago but only yesterday - if you see what I mean. Best wishes.
2008 SPS is still a current condition for BPS (RD01) :-
"Non-agricultural land is considered eligible for BPS on the condition that both of these criteria are met:
• The non-agricultural land was used with entitlements to claim under the Single Payments Scheme in 2008
• The land is currently in a Countryside Woodland Creation Maintenance agreement"
(Forestry Commission ON 042 Version 3.0 issued 19/02/20 p5)
Last edited:
- Location
- Northumberland
Just looked in on this thread.Does everyone think the Government are actually going to pay out this December 1st?