My house wants its fields back

[Flyfisher]

The estate agent said that the reason why councils have to be vigilant about people extending their gardens is because a good eye has to be kept on agriculture not losing too much land to private gardens. He said if they didn't control it significant chunks would be lost and farming in the UK would suffer.

In which case, why don't you need permission to buy agricultural land (or perhaps you do? :roll: ) just in case someone buys some land and then doesn't farm it. Anyway, how does all that square with the government paying some farmers to set-aside land and take it out of production?

Still, there is some hope that people ignore all such nonsense - Pford75's links to that smallholder article was interesting:

Now, when an inspector calls, you’ll be able to account for every part of every beast! (or simply write ‘missing’ in the flock record book, like everyone else does!).

In practice, although I know dozens of smallholders who regularly slaughter their own sheep and lambs for family consumption, I am not aware that any one of them takes the slightest bit of notice of this daft piece of nanny-state legislation. I must let you make up your own mind over this.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Surely the designated building line for a settlement would not be altered by extending a 'garden' into an adjacent field, so I don't see how it could make things easier to develop. Anyway, if development is deemed undesirable in a particular spot, regardless of the land designation, then surely PP would not be granted? It just seems to me that we need permission to do anything these days or can't do things without excessive bureaucracy. As previously pointed out, even keeping a few lambs for the freezer is now a bureacratic nightmare.

Fair point about gnomes though. :lol:

You wouldn't need planning permission to fill 50% of your garden with "ancillary structures" (individually below a certain height and a set distance from the house), in most cases - settlement boundary or not. Hence the desire to control the conversion of farmland into garden.

 

[Flyfisher]

But isn't it also possible to build all sorts of "structures" as agricultural buildings without needing planning permission?
And, I suspect, with far fewer restrictions concerning height and size than in a domestic garden setting.

 

[JoceAndChris]

For the first time ever Flyfisher :shock: I don't go along with your feeling about this. There are some truly ugly structures erected in fields, it's true, but they often have a temporary look about them. And at least you think - oh well, we all get to enjoy things like mushrooms that are grown in great big plastic tunnels like that.

If I buy that bit of land, and keep a horse on it, or grow trees, or wheat, everyone gets to enjoy the beauty of that, plus the other benefits to society. If I don't farm it and it becomes a wild meadow Nature benefits.

But if I were free to turn it into garden I could fill it with bouncy castles, slides, trampolines, screaming children, gnomes, plastic ancillary structures, and nasty water features. The dog walk that a lot of people in this town enjoy would have a different character, and as I've already mentioned the spot is visible from all over town.

 

[Flyfisher]

For the first time ever Flyfisher :shock: I don't go along with your feeling about this.

Surely not? I can't be trying hard enough! :wink:

Seriously though, I do take your point about the possibility of creating an eyesore of a garden (beauty being in the eye of the beholder, other opinions are available, etc., etc.), but it's just as easy - possibly easier - to create an eyesore of an 'agricultural' field by turning it into an smallholding full of ramshackle sheds, assorted muck heaps, broken-down old greenhouses, polytunnels, field shelters, rusting machinery and even huge livestock sheds bigger than any house. So I don't really see what protection is gained by PP restrictions on extending a garden by buying a bit of agricultural land.

I guess I just have a natural aversion to the ever-increasing, over-regulated, nanny-state, can't-trust-anyone approach to most things these days. I'm realistic enough to realise it's not going to change but I haven't yet grown out of moaning about it, although I'm sure 'the system' will grind me down eventually.

However, in your particular case, I'm sure you'll be an exemplary guardian of the land and the landscape and I hope things work out as you wish.

 

[JoceAndChris]

:lol: Well, that was a lovely compliment, but if you could see the rusting machinery, piles of dung, discarded rat traps and bait boxes and broken windows and everthing choked with ivy that makes up the garden I think you might say that I need legislating against!

I do understand your dislike of over-regulation, but, not everyone has the taste and decorum deserving of freedom. In days gone by people were poor and kept down by that and fear of God, hellfire, and local landlords. Now people in this country all have disposable income and would make a right mess of things given half a chance - take the eyesore that is Christmas.

 

[Moo]

Regarding the idea of set-aside, I think this says it all -

Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
London SW1P 3JR 16 May 2007

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?

My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100?

I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?

I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?

In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits.

I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Johnson-Hill

(Mr. Johnson-Hill is a former farmer, and current chairman of Bedlam Asset Management, according to the Times of London.)

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Dear Moo,

Never one to blow my own trumpet ( :roll: ) but I posted that on page 4 of this thread!!!

Luvnhugs

Robin 8)

 

[Flyfisher]

So good it was posted twice. :lol:

 

[JoceAndChris]

It was indeed brilliant!

Anyway, good news for those of you who have pony paddocks or horsey fields, they cost a bomb:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3357038/What-price-a-pony-paddock.html

Admittedly that article was written just before the property price crash, but it would appear that the value of a properly developed grazing field with horse facilities is way above ordinary agricultural land.

We're currently negotiating with the landowner's agent, who seems to think this bit of land is worth 10k per acre. A horse needs 3 acres. From a quick look at rightmove, it appears that a pony paddock with proper fencing and housing would put 30k on the value of the house. (We paid 350, I couldn't find any detached 4 bed cottages with 3 or 4 acres under 400). However, when I start comparing the value of BC with other properties it becomes very difficult, a lot of people are seriously put off by not being on mains water, having no neighbours and needing to drive up a mile of rough track to get here. For others that's heaven.

We'd need to do an awful lot of work to get the land into a fit state for horses and ideally sink a well. I see that a few fields along, where cows have been grazing, the farmer has dug several huge holes in the field and they've filled up with water. Perhaps we could do something similar. The agent was surprised to hear we aren't on mains so that goes in our favour in terms of bargaining.

 

[Flyfisher]

That was an interesting article about the costs involved in 'running' a field for horses. They initially seemed a bit on the high side to me but maybe not if someone else is paid to do all the work. Have you thought about starting a livery business Joce?

 

[JoceAndChris]

I have, but to do anything on a large scale as a commercial venture would require planning permission, which is an unknown as to whether or not it would be granted, and a high initial outlay.

In many ways this is a perfect spot for a horsey business as we have access to a lot of open countryside criss-crossed with footpaths.

I'm booking my first riding lessons.

 

[JohnB]

Here's a good use for land. It takes time and effort to create, but once up and running should be low maintenance. And you can eat the produce
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/03/forest-gardening

 

[Feltwell]

In many ways this is a perfect spot for a horsey business as we have access to a lot of open countryside criss-crossed with footpaths.

Yes, but are they footpaths or bridleways? You can't just take a horse down a footpath. If I remember rightly, horses are allowed on Bridleways, RUPP's (Roads used as Public Paths), BOATs (Byways open to all traffic) and UCR (Unclassified County Roads). An OS map will tell you what you have locally. Not too complicated for horse access, it's a minefield for motorised access, with very large grey areas on what is and is not legal.

I'm booking my first riding lessons.

Don't trust horses - they have a brain and do what they want to do. I stick to motorbikes, much more controllable!
(Cue outraged horse lovers! I like horses a lot, just not to ride!)

 

[Flyfisher]

I used to ride a fair bit in my teens; a consequence of having a horse-mad girlfriend (not Mrs FF, though coincidentally she was a national junior showjumping champion so perhaps I have a thing for 'horsey' types!)

My abiding memories are of how hard it was to make the damn things move at anything other than an indolent walk when going away from the stableyard yet as soon as we turned around to go back it was impossible to hold them back from a full-on gallop. We soon learned that a one hour hack really meant 55 mins of walking-away boredom and 5 mins of galloping-back-clinging-on-for-dear-life terror.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

My abiding memories are of how hard it was to make the damn things move at anything other than an indolent walk when going away from the stableyard yet as soon as we turned around to go back it was impossible to hold them back from a full-on gallop. We soon learned that a one hour hack really meant 55 mins of walking-away boredom and 5 mins of galloping-back-clinging-on-for-dear-life terror.

Are we talking about the horses or the girlfriends here?

I similarly had a few horsey girlfriends, but managed not to learn to ride! Something I keep meaning to put right...

 

[Flyfisher]

:lol:
I was thinking about the horses, but now you mention it . . . .

 

[LadyArowana]

I like horses a lot, just not to ride!

You write very well considering English isn't your first language.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I like horses a lot, just not to ride!

You write very well considering English isn't your first language.

:shock:

 

[JoceAndChris]

No doubt Lady A is having a little tease, but I'm too fluey to understand.

Anyway Feltwell, I'm glad you posted about the whole bridleway thing. Plenty of horses go clip-clopping round there but looking at the map only footpaths are marked. I'm sure this would go against getting planning permission for any kind of horsey business started up here, wouldn't they have to designate new use for the tracks?

Does anyone know anything about footpaths? For example, this bit of land we'd like to buy has a regularly used footpath through it, but it's not marked on the map. Would you get away with fencing it off, as long as you left the official footpath that is marked on the map accessible?