⁕ The RPA’s dedication to getting its computer system in shape to handle this years’ BPS applications can only be applauded. The new system appears to have worked well and seems to have done the basics. The new four-digit area measurements allow fantastic degrees of accuracy – as I discovered this morning on receiving a letter from the RPA to inform me that my calculations on one of the few paper applications I made contained an error.
Apparently there was an area for which I had not submitted a land use code. An area that amounted to 0.0001ha. That’s right, one square metre of land was not coded properly.
If only we could expect them to be quite so accurate when making payments on time.
I am tempted to send them a high-resolution photograph of the area in question so they can count the blades of grass, just to make sure.
Edward Dixon Simmons & Sons, Henley on Thames, Oxfordshire
⁕ I had to write after reading the articles about the effect of dog attacks on sheep in the past few months (in particular, News, 29 April).
My partner and I farm sheep and cattle in the Monaro district of New South Wales, but we read Farmers Weekly each week as we find the information, markets and global features of tremendous help. Your publication gives us a “sticky beak” into how other farmers run their operations and what challenges they have to cope with. It is interesting to compare commodity prices and the seemingly staggering price of your land (perhaps someone can explain how the maths adds up?).
One of the major challenges we have had to manage – aside from the weather and our slide into a very dry period – is the horror and despair that dog attacks have caused us and many of our neighbours since 1975.
The dogs are predominantly “wild dogs” or dingoes that come out of the neighbouring National Park and decimate any flock in their sights. So this is different from the UK experience with unmanaged domestic dogs, but just as heartbreaking for the stock owners.
As landowners with a 12km boundary with the National Park, it is a daily worry that somewhere on our property we may have sheep that have been attacked and left to die with horrific wounds and gaping holes in their flanks.
This problem has multiple effects on farmers. The animal welfare issue is foremost. I am haunted by the sight, early one winter morning, of a young weaner sheep (less than a year old) standing away from the mob on a hill with a huge, bloody hole in his side and up to his neck. It was a forlorn and stark reminder that dogs are indiscriminate killers – once they have killed sheep they will keep on killing sheep.
The financial impact is, of course, an issue, but that isn’t what keeps us awake at night. We have spent nights out in the paddocks trying to watch over our sheep, but the size of the area we have means it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Although it is important to note that tens of thousands of sheep are killed each year across Australia by wild dogs, they have also battered the native fauna, as well as killing many calves over the years in the north of Australia. It is a national endemic problem that no one has managed to stem.
The other effect of note is the relationship we have with the neighbour that allows the breeding of these dogs. The Kosciuszko National Park is a state-owned venture that over many years has seemingly failed to understand how the wild dogs affect stockowners.
As a consequence, farmers adjoining the park have stopped running sheep over the years as nobody can watch the animals they have bred die night after night.
Anxiety, stress, anger and many other mental health issues affect all of us that have stock. We have such a responsibility to keep them healthy, safe and well nourished. It is a tremendous privilege and brings at times laughter and joy at the antics of our animals. Although the trauma of dog attacks makes it easy for me to understand why farmers move out of sheep, it is an issue that makes even the tough old bush farmers shed a tear. So we understand what your farmers are going through and wish them all the best.
Bill Brewis and Sarah Woodhouse New South Wales, Australia
⁕ It is tempting to put the issue of the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) to one side now the 16 May deadline has passed in England.
However, given the number of BPS headlines generated over the past three months, it seems sensible to reflect on the successes and failures of the 2016 scheme year in a bid to give some constructive feedback to the Rural Payment Agency (RPA).
It is difficult to discuss BPS without acknowledging the effects of payment delays relating to 2015 claims, which have caused widespread cashflow problems and distress.
Many farmers have also suffered from what look to be serious underpayments, which still need to be resolved.
But against a backdrop of frustration over why problems have arisen, we acknowledge that there were some improvements to the application process this year.
The transfer of entitlements and land was a much simpler process than before and considerably better than with the previous paper-based system.
Indeed, overall the online system was functional, the greening checker helpful and claims were easy to amend and resubmit if this proved necessary.
This meant for claims that were fairly straightforward, and where everything had been processed correctly from 2015, this year was a relatively easy one.
On the downside, it felt like a backwards step that maps could only be printed out at an individual parcel level. It was frustrating that some land and entitlements had dropped off the system, some land was incorrectly identified and some mapping changes were being carried out even as the forms were being filled in (a hangover from the backlog of 2015 RLE1 forms). The mapping and coding of permanent ineligible features (PIFs) also seemed unnecessarily complicated.
The biggest challenge was those instances where the RPA had introduced errors, for a variety of reasons, which did take a long time to untangle and correct. This is despite the benefit, as agents, of access to a dedicated team at the RPA and the experience filling out multiple claims brings.
If the RPA is to meet its target of paying 90% of farmers in December 2016, it is clear they will need to ensure all discrepancies in land parcels, entitlements and eligible areas are ironed out over the summer period.
The deadline may have passed for farmers, but it looks as if the hard work is just beginning for the RPA.
George Chichester National partner, Strutt & Parker
⁕ I wonder if your readers can help me. I am restoring a 1950 Nipper Truck milk float, designed and manufactured in Hull.
I am too young (only just) to remember these and it appears this is the last-known survivor. The registration number I believe is a West Sussex one.
I would love to know more and if anyone remembers them. They are only 2m long and are driven from a footplate at the rear. They have no lights fitted, so must have just been for “local” use – perhaps by a dairy farmer. They could travel 8mph flat out from the single-cylinder 500cc motor.
One of your readers may even recognise this machine, named “Billy”. I hope so. I have purchased some 1950s galvanised milk crates, but I am desperate for some old milk bottles. I managed to buy 80 out of an old barn and hope there are other people around who can assist. The float holds 18 crates, so you can imagine I need as many as I can get my hands on.
I live in the East Riding of York-shire, am am on 07932 769 214.
⁕ Sitting on the fence about the referendum is not a sign of weakness or indecision. It comes from not having enough information that can be trusted – there are still some important pieces missing from both sides.
This is a debate about the future, not about past or present battles. Both sides have to explain their vision for the future of the UK, in or out of the EU, and how they are going to achieve it. Only then can we judge whether we want to be part of it or not. It is easy to be swayed by the emotions of the headlines, but the story is often very different when you look at the details.
We need to hear what “Remain” will do with the CAP, and how it will control the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.
Brexit needs to commit to some level of subsidies and not spend them all on new hospitals, to allow temporary labour, as well as agreeing on which pieces of red tape it will have to keep.
Neither side can deliver everything they promise, either, because we have such a small minority of the votes in the EU institutions or because the negotiations with 27 countries will be too difficult.
But where does Remain draw its “red line” in the sand to protect our interests? And how will Brexit get us out of the EU without hurting the economy?
This is why we launched our own unbiased website at www.euandyou.com.
However, if you want to hear what the parties say about the future then we must get away from this music hall of custard pies, bad jokes and economic magic tricks that they try to call a campaign.
⁕ Suffolk farmer Richard Wrinch has had to part with £27,000 in the past three years for repairs to his one-and-a-half-mile stretch of sea wall.
“We had been told by the Environment Agency before the tidal surge of December 2013 that it had withdrawn maintenance of our wall and repairs were up to us,” said Mr Wrinch.
“The wall didn’t disappear but it was overtopped and after five weeks of waiting for the water to vanish we realised it had taken 90% of the clay shoring it up.”
It cost the Wrinch family £17,000 to hire experts and buy the heavy plant to reclaim the clay following the tidal surge. In the autumn of 2015 they had to make another repair to a 40m stretch of wall at a cost of £10,000.
If they had done nothing, the sea would eventually have reclaimed about 112 acres of their land.
“Managed retreat might be our only way in the future because maintaining all 1.5 miles in the long term is not viable,” said Mr Wrinch.
The family received support from the Essex Coast Organisation (ECO), set up by farmers to examine and challenge the withdrawal of sea-wall maintenance by the EA.
ECO has developed a good working relationship with the regional EA representative and the agency’s Anglian Regional Flood and Coastal Committee has now committed an annual £19,500 to provide materials, labour and plant costs for small-scale maintenance works.
Andrew St Joseph, farmer and head of ECO, said: “By intervening early, repairs stay small, allowing the EA to focus its reduced resources on more complex repairs.
“Years ago it would take two months and a written application to acquire permission. Now, with increasing trust between us and the local EA representative, it requires just a telephone call for small-scale works.”
Sea wall maintenance is often left to landowners but can be a minefield of red tape. Navigating the legal issues is essential, however, before starting any work – no matter how urgent.
Farmers and landowners have no obligations in relation to the sea wall generally, but the Environment Agency (EA) is not obliged to maintain these walls either. It simply has the authority to carry out works, when funding allows.
It therefore falls to the farmer to maintain the wall or lose vast swathes of land, and potentially expose residential or commercial properties to flooding and walkers to danger.
As a result, landowners can and do face costly enforcement action, even prosecution, for failing to use the right materials to mend sea walls, particularly if acreage falls into environmentally sensitive areas.
In order to carry out works to protect land, the farmer must apply for an exemption permission from the EA. There is no specific exemption related to sea walls; instead there are 93 possible exemptions covering all manner of works such as waste disposal.
These are all on the EA website but to navigate through and find the ones you need, it is best to contact the EA and ask them to help work out what is needed. Each licence costs £1,600 upwards.
Sea wall maintenance and repairs call for careful planning
FLPA/REX/SHUTTERSTOCK
Many coastal areas however cover Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and other such environmental and wildlife designations, which require bespoke exemptions from the EA.
These tend to cost considerably more – the sum being dependent on what is needed – and Natural England and other wildlife groups will also need consulting.
GET LICENCES IN PLACE BEFORE CARRYING OUT WORK
Getting the necessary permissions from the EA, particularly bespoke licences, can be protracted and take several months, so consult with them early and take professional advice.
The EA is in the process of devel oping an exemption for small-scale works that should hopefully help with cutting through the red tape, but this is not ready yet. There are, however, a few local groups being set up to help farmers navigate the current process.
Do not under any circumstance undertake works without the necessary permissions, as you could face environmental enforcement, possibly even prosecution and fines or even prison sentences in the worst scenarios.
Be aware that exemption permissions are licensed to individuals, not properties, so if a coastal farm is changing hands, the new occupier will have to apply for their own licence. On tenanted land, whoever carries out the sea wall maintenance – landlord or tenant – must hold the licence.
CHECK CONTRACTORS AND MATERIALS
The EA employs environmental engineers who should be able to advise on the type of work and materials that are needed. Always get this advice before planning work.
If the work requires contractors and suppliers, ask the EA to check they have the necessary permissions, such as for waste disposal, and have a clean track record. Local word of mouth should be a good indication, too.
⁕ Lower commodity prices pushed turnover down at Anglia Farmers, the UK’s largest farmer buying group.
The year to January 31, 2016 saw group turnover drop £16.5m to £230.9m but a 10% higher operating surplus of £882,000 was achieved.
The group’s accounts include results for purchasing co-operative Anglia Farmers with three wholly owned subsidiaries AF Affinity, AF Finance and AF Biomass.
After a distribution of almost £537,000 to members, a net surplus of £323,000 has been retained, increasing the balance sheet to £2.8m. The group also runs a £5m peer-to-peer lending scheme.
Pig price on slow road to recovery
⁕ Pig producers face a long road back to profitability as the market finally starts to move up.
The EU-spec standard pig price rose to 117.49p/kg in the week to 28 May, reflecting a rise of more than 5p/kg in eight weeks.
The average British producer lost £9 a head in the first quarter of this year, compared with a £4 loss in the last part of 2015, according to AHDB Pork.
This was the fifth consecutive quarter in which the gap between pig prices and full production costs was negative.
It is estimated that about 20,000 sows have been lost from the national herd in the past few months. The breeding herd is expected to fall by a further 11,000 sows to 401,000by the end of this year.
Spud plantings and production
⁕ For clarification, the potato story on p21 in last week’s Farmers Weekly referred to GB plantings of 96,251ha in 2015 and production 5.5% lower than in 2014.
These figures excluded seed and starch, which brought the GB plantings total last year to about 111,000ha.
Landowners who let grass on seasonal agreements must play an active role in its management if they want to claim business tax relief, according to a recent ruling.
The decision concerned landowner John Allen in Northern Ireland, who let 4ha of pasture to a neighbour for seasonal grazing and silage.
As well as using the land for keeping animals sold in the market and grazing it himself over the winter, Mr Allen supplied fertiliser to the tenant and engaged a contractor to cut weeds and hedges.
When Mr Allen appealed after HMRC rejected his claim for capital gains tax taper relief (now abolished) the tax tribunal ruled he had occupied the land and had taken responsibility for its husbandry and should, therefore, be allowed relief.
“This new decision adds further weight and clarification to the previous case law,” said Jeremy Moody, secretary and adviser at the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers. “Although the case revolves around a conacre [seasonal grazing] agreement in Northern Ireland, the ruling is extremely pertinent to landowners with grazing or cropping agreements across the UK.”
Dawn Mayo, senior tax manager at Evolution ABS in Somerset, said: “This case highlights that landowners producing grass who wish to be treated as farmers for tax purposes, must play an active role in managing the grass crop. It is important that they take responsibility for fertilising, weed control and boundary maintenance if they want to qualify for tax reliefs.”
Farmers and landowners are warned not to rely on insurance to protect them against losses that may arise from nearby fracking operations.
Malton-based rural broker McClarrons has seen an increase since last summer in enquiries by worried land and property owners in Ryedale, where North Yorkshire County Council recently approved fracking plans at Kirby Misperton.
Chief among their concerns are damage to built property, groundwater contamination and potential for damage to land, crops and stock.
“Many think their insurer will pay for all losses they suffer and then simply claim the money back from the operator but it isn’t that simple,” said Becky Ireland, farm account executive at McClarrons.
“Most insurers do not recognise fracking as an ‘insured peril’ under a farm combined or similar policy, as opposed to traditional standard perils such as fire, theft or flood.
“Damage caused by earthquake and subsidence are generally covered under buildings insurance and if fracking led to these insured events, a claim would likely succeed. However, unlike home insurance, commercial buildings often do not have subsidence included as standard and cover may need to be added as an optional extra.
“Commercial property insurance wordings vary considerably and similar issues may arise in relation to damage to land, for example contamination or damage to crops.”
Most home and commercial property insurance policies also exclude losses arising from pollution or contamination. Environmental liability policies also vary, with some excluding losses caused by fracking, said Miss Ireland.
Clean-up costs normally fall to the polluter but proving the source may be difficult and costly, especially as it may occur over a long timescale and the polluter may no longer be in business or may not be worth pursuing financially.
Farmers and landowners needed to review cover and consider cover for legal costs to pursue damages claims and to deal with any environmental investigations should a loss occur, said Miss Ireland.
Last year the Infrastructure Act gave landowners protection from liability for third-party claims for loss or damage arising from fracking, for example where neighbours or their property suffer damage.
