Natural England knows best?

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
“Required in connection with the agreement”. I don’t see that your example of the library would stand up to legal challenge. Sure the wording is a bit loose, but I think you’re a bit daft if that’s the main reason to refuse.

I don't think the NE's treatment of @ajcc will stand up to a legal challenge but it hasn't stopped him suffering years of sh!t.
 

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
“Required in connection with the agreement”. I don’t see that your example of the library would stand up to legal challenge. Sure the wording is a bit loose, but I think you’re a bit daft if that’s the main reason to refuse.

I would take it that the 'in connection with the agreement' part refers to the land and premises that are covered by the agreement, not that the public body have to be connected to the agreement in any way. Thus the local Museum and Library service would indeed have the right to access all your land and records etc should they choose to do so.
 

Highland Mule

Member
Livestock Farmer
I would take it that the 'in connection with the agreement' part refers to the land and premises that are covered by the agreement, not that the public body have to be connected to the agreement in any way. Thus the local Museum and Library service would indeed have the right to access all your land and records etc should they choose to do so.

“Required” was my watchword.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
Fair point, but I suspect there’s more to that case than we are hearing.

He has stated that all agreements on that land ended in 2012 and that the land in question has no other designations that would affect his farming of it.
One can only be led to suspect that the 'more than we are hearing' is a degree of cooperation between Natural England and the the landowner, The National Trust, to achieve a mutual goal to the detriment of the tenant.
Whatever the case may be, it does seem clear that NE are guilty of abusing their powers.
If they are guilty of this and this case highlights the difficulty of challenging their decision making, anyone signing any agreement with them should be extremely concerned.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
But the legal system in the UK is broken. You no longer have the automatic right of Appeal instead its up to a Judge to decide who is worthy of Justice and who is not.

And to make things worse, these 'non-departmental public bodies' use all the facilities of state but aren't held accountable in the same way that they would be if part of the government.
They really do seem to operate 'above the law'.
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
As I understand it the new Elms scheme is a reimbursement for income forgone for taking environmental measures, so if they are are only giving you back what you have lost is it not better to carry on as you are, keep the income and farm how you want without all the hassle, or am I being naiive.

That's not a bad précis of it. They only have to make it marginally more attractive than food production on that piece of land to make it look attractive. Really, they should be considering the implications on other farm overheads by taking land out of production too.
 

renewablejohn

Member
Location
lancs
As I understand it the new Elms scheme is a reimbursement for income forgone for taking environmental measures, so if they are are only giving you back what you have lost is it not better to carry on as you are, keep the income and farm how you want without all the hassle, or am I being naiive.
Its the same con that the forestry commission has used for "compensation for turning good farmland into trees". Once you take the money and plant the trees they change the rules so that they no longer have to pay the compensation and you cannot get rid of the trees.
 

Jackov Altraids

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Devon
As I understand it the new Elms scheme is a reimbursement for income forgone for taking environmental measures, so if they are are only giving you back what you have lost is it not better to carry on as you are, keep the income and farm how you want without all the hassle, or am I being naiive.

This is my conclusion.
Then if you factor in the costs of the requirements, the time for completing paperwork and the fact that unless they improve the T&C's they can move the goalposts and ask for all their money back, it's a no-brainer.
And the biggest risk of all is that it allows them to reclassify your land so that you lose control and any income.
 

neilo

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Montgomeryshire
As I understand it the new Elms scheme is a reimbursement for income forgone for taking environmental measures, so if they are are only giving you back what you have lost is it not better to carry on as you are, keep the income and farm how you want without all the hassle, or am I being naiive.

We were always told that it was the nasty old EU that meant we could only be paid on an 'income foregone' basis for enviro schemes. We were promised, in the run up to Brexit, that leaving would mean we could actually be paid for providing a 'public good' instead.

Was that just another b*llsh*t promise, or will they make good on it once the actual payment rates are published?
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
We were always told that it was the nasty old EU that meant we could only be paid on an 'income foregone' basis for enviro schemes. We were promised, in the run up to Brexit, that leaving would mean we could actually be paid for providing a 'public good' instead.

Was that just another b*llsh*t promise, or will they make good on it once the actual payment rates are published?

Tis bulls**t. More stick. Less carrot.
 

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
As I understand it the new Elms scheme is a reimbursement for income forgone for taking environmental measures, so if they are are only giving you back what you have lost is it not better to carry on as you are, keep the income and farm how you want without all the hassle, or am I being naiive.

Kind of depends I guess. The 'income foregone' element would obviously be an average over the entire country, so if your BPS payment is 90% of your profit as things stand, then your farming activities aren't making much profit anyway. So when BPS goes you'd have to go into ELMS to get any profit at all. Whereas Mr '4 tonnes an acre' would be making a decent margin even without BPS, so for him it would make sense keep farming the lot and ignore ELMS. The trick Defra have to pull off is to set the payment rates at a high enough level that allows the marginally profitable land to keep going, but not too high that everyone in the land puts every acre possible in because its a licence to print money.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 79 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.2%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.3%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 6 3.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,287
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top