Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The Relationship between SFI and CSS ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Goweresque" data-source="post: 7953426" data-attributes="member: 818"><p>The reality is they can and will, because they have the laws to back them up. If a landowner allows his land to get into a state that means it fall under the laws on natural habitats (or could be considered by people such as NE to fall under such laws) then they will attempt to enforce those laws. It matters not whether you've taken the Queen's Shilling in the form of environmental payments, or you just shut the gate one day and didn't come back for 30 years, if you allow your land to become a 'natural environment' instead of a farmed one, then its status changes and what you are allowed to do with it changes. For example if you left a field to do nothing for 30 years and it became to be covered in saplings more than 3 inches in diameter at breast height then it would have become legally woodland and any attempt to rip out all the scrub and plant wheat would attract the full force of the law. No money would have been received, just the passage of time and nature would mean nature of the land had changed. Being paid to do exactly the same thing does not alter the final outcome either.</p><p></p><p>Anyone signing these agreements needs to be very clear as to the potential outcomes at the end that are not mentioned in the agreement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Goweresque, post: 7953426, member: 818"] The reality is they can and will, because they have the laws to back them up. If a landowner allows his land to get into a state that means it fall under the laws on natural habitats (or could be considered by people such as NE to fall under such laws) then they will attempt to enforce those laws. It matters not whether you've taken the Queen's Shilling in the form of environmental payments, or you just shut the gate one day and didn't come back for 30 years, if you allow your land to become a 'natural environment' instead of a farmed one, then its status changes and what you are allowed to do with it changes. For example if you left a field to do nothing for 30 years and it became to be covered in saplings more than 3 inches in diameter at breast height then it would have become legally woodland and any attempt to rip out all the scrub and plant wheat would attract the full force of the law. No money would have been received, just the passage of time and nature would mean nature of the land had changed. Being paid to do exactly the same thing does not alter the final outcome either. Anyone signing these agreements needs to be very clear as to the potential outcomes at the end that are not mentioned in the agreement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
The Relationship between SFI and CSS ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top