We all know that community is important, and that farmers are part of the rural communities around the UK, and in so many rural areas, banks and post offices have shut down, losing in many cases a resources which was needed and which was used. Farmers are important business people, and our financial and food security relies on them. I would be interested to hear your views, Village life needs a heart. Look forward to hearing your responses

john kirby:

We all know that community is important, and that farmers are part of the rural communities around the UK, and in so many rural areas, banks and post offices have shut down, losing in many cases a resources which was needed and which was used.

Just to kick off the replies John. The world is awash with 'self defining' communities such as the Gay community, the Black community and we all know of those communities that, whilst claiming inclusivity, try to add a moral tone to their title such as 'Friends' of the Earth, as though the rest of us are enemies of the earth. The rural community is however made up of those people who live in the rural area (often a Parish) and who, whatever their means of livelihood and other preferences share local activities and facilities. Certainly in my own case the two focal points of the large rural parish are the village hall and the church. Our nearest pub is four miles away and post office five. In order to go anywhere or get anything one has to travel by car or bike. The community therefore does have a sense of the need to share resources and to help to look out for each other.

john kirby:

Farmers are important business people, and our financial and food security relies on them.

I agree with this statement but you would be hard pressed to find many farmers, who tend to be less gregarious with strangers than city folk, who believe that the majority of the population give them the credit you are prepared to.

The reason many of these small bank branches, post offices, village shops, pubs etc have closed is because the population that formerly used them has changed. Bigger farms (to be exacerbated by even bigger food production methods such as the proposed Super Dairy that you said you were not opposed to) have resulted in changes to supplies procurement. Less people employed in agricutural and more commuting to the nearest large town or city every day means those people buy goods and services in that town or city. Forty years ago many villages could support a petrol pump/mechanic, a pub, PO, a bank maybe one or two days a week, a shop and sometimes related small businesses too. It is probably too late to reverse this, but if the EU report mentioned on the opening page of FWi when I logged on is followed through and rural depopulation is halted, and preferably reversed in many area, then there might still be hope. Despite the usual pontificating from the RSPB, direct payment, especially in the more rural areas, is of immense benefit to the whole local population, and indirectly to the birds that the RSPB is supposed to be interested in protecting according to the P in RSPB. The reason for this is that smaller agricultural units, and village houses invariably have habitats that suit a wide range of bird species, and food for them too.

Old Macdonald, I agree that population change is a cause, when I was last involved in farming on a Day to Day basis, a big issue that was happening, was that young people were being driven out by high house prices, so could not afford to live in the village, therefore their children did not go to the local school, it was like the village was facing a slow death. I tried very hard to get the local council to give us permission to build a small close of 15 homes, and link the rent to the equivalent size house on a street in either Folkstone, Dover, Canterbury or Ashford, that would control the rent. Conditions that I was willing have put on the land by covenant was that the houses could only be rented by young people between the age of 18 and 26, but of course, one you were a tenant, you were free to continuing renting, that the young person had to live in the village for at least 3 years in the last seven, so if they had been away to university they would not be disqualified from gaining the tenancy, and that 48 weeks rent was paid normally, but four weeks per annum had to be paid in work in the village at an arbitrary rate of £7.05 per hour. We were refused. The houses never got built. We had people willing to do a farming degree, who lived on farms, that could not get into Wye College, yet people from London, got in with no experience. Yes, I do support the "SuperDairy", I prefer that, I prefer Food Security than food deprivation. I have seen good agricultural businesses fail in the UK, for the sake of relatively small amounts of funding needed. I personally have invested in some small businesses, not for the return, but the social need. There are practical things that can help, here in Nottingham a small engineering company got a contract for some CNC lathe work, but could not a loan from a bank for a CNC lathe, and there was another company a few miles away in Loughborough that was laying off five people and had two machines lying idle, by putting these people together we managed to retain 3 of the five staff in work, get the contract done, did not have to borrow anymore money or pay any extra interest. Since then, the company has gone on to get two more contracts, and has re-employed the other two staff and two more.

I will forgive you for supporting the dairy because your actions - worth far, far more than any pontificating by the greatest mind in the world, are exactly what is needed, have always been needed, and will continue to be needed; in the cities as you have demonstrated, but even more so in the rural areas of the world. I tend to look beyond England because I have never lived further south there than Morpeth, Northumberland but my experiences elsewhere have shown that rural depopulation is a problem in each of the other countries I have lived and farmed - Australia, Scotland and Portugal. It is much worse here than elsewhere I have been. 

I will have a dig about your support for the dairy though. I cannot see that this factory will do anything for "Food Security" either in Britain or elsewhere. Nocton's website claims that it will not displace any English (UK?) produced milk, but replace imports. No claim of increasing overall world production, and I would not expect them to. All they are going to do is put some smaller family producers into a worsening financial situation. Whether that be in Britain or mainland Europe is immaterial so far as I am concerned. I can understand others, wrongly in my view, only being concerned about English producers.

housing is the big problem in rural areas, as described above.

the simple solution , although late in the day, is to slap section 75,s on all farmhouses and cottages. this will keep commuters out.

next step is to make change of use planning applicable to holiday cottages taken from everyday occupation.. that includes 2nd homes.

also outlaw the short assured tenancy

this will require a labour govt to enact, something not seen for 31 yrs.

oh, i forgot to say scrap the fbt.

if the farmers themselves are transient, so everyone else will be.

Old Mcdonald Thank you for your generous view, I have always been and "Oddball" and try and tackle thing in a practical way. In a blog http://csljohnkirby.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/hello-world/ in January, I wrote living under the same moon. So I do care if the jobs lost are here or anywhere else, I am a hypocrite in that I worry about Carbon Emissions in Food Miles, so only buy pre-packed food like pineapple chunks so the waste, is not transported, so my view of the super dairy, is we know, an experiment, it could well become transferable technology. I remember as a small boy in the late 1960's maybe early 1970's, our milk was collected in churns, I guess we had 30 cows, by 78, and tankers became the norm we had maybe 200 cows. In the Queen's Silver Jubilee year 1977, as an 11 year old boy, I remember, that being the first year that I was really expected to work, the milking equipment being changed, tanks being fitted Etc. Now a days, even with one's own children it is hard to instil a work ethic into them, I took my 15 year to the Hospital one morning, the appointment overrun, so I went straight to a meeting on a building site, I gave my son a hard hat, he already was wearing DM's with metal toecaps, and a yellow hi-vis, but site security would not even let him walk to the portacabin (Office) with me because he did not have a valid CSCS card. If the super dairy works, and does a deal with supermarkets about covering the real cost of milk production, it could in fact lift the price. I know this is going offtrack, but picks up on your view of being concerned about being concern with more than just English producers, I was witness to a piece of terrible racist abuse, I stepped in (some say like a fool) and got hit, now I am lucky, as a fat git, when I hit the floor my stomach stopped my head hitting the ground, my knees and pride was hurt but not much else. It seemed like the police were unable, "although very willing I must say" to do anything, but the parents of the three lads who I spoke to, quite liked an idea, I had, to make their son's watch three operations rather than get a criminal record and not be able to get a job because of it. I managed to get the three DVD's from procedures that were used at a medical school, of an appendix being removed. It shocked them, that inside the Black Lady, the White Man and the Teenage Indian Lad, all were exactly the same, no difference, the operations were identical. Two of the three lads, have since written to me, and one appeared on television and made public what I had done, and he work at an equality workshop for teenagers now. A cheap simple step towards change. This world, sadly focuses on our differences, not on the common features, and if that was done on every level, I think the world would be a better place. Too simple a view, maybe, but look at the mess complex solutions and answers have got us too. Simple and Honest might be the best action for us all.

Glasshouse scrap Finance Business Training, surely not.......................................seriously, Farm Business Tenancies, I am not sure why you want it scrapped, but agricultural purpose is a good clause, Although I am against short two year tenancies, and I believe they should be auto-renewing unless a serious breach of performance happens. What are your reasons, I would love to know. My late father taught me "That no matter what political party I vote for, the Government always gets in" and that has made me “A Liberal Minded Conservative Soul with a Socialist Heart, tinged with a Green Outlook” , I will vote for any party that offers good Governance, has good policies. Recently, I saw a farm for sale, for £800,000+, with just over 220 acres of land (mainly grade 3), and I knew of three people (actually, two couples, and a single woman, so five people), each looking to buy a small farm two had up to £350k available and the other £300k, so I suggest they become partners, well, you would have thought I had suggest they each give up their first born for slaughter, they would have each had a freehold share in a productive dairy farm, with land to develop their own ideas, I remain convinced it would have worked. I think we need to be looking at different ways of doing things, how much better would a farm do, if brought cash by three groups of people rather than one with a big loan, with big interest.

john, this is old ground for most others posters familiar with my rants, but here goes anyway.

Short term tenancies are the death of farmers and farming. They denude the tenant of all natural and legal rights,  denude the land of fertility , and lead to a general decline in the appearance and fitness for purpose of the countryside.

The effect on the workers is just as pronounced, as the tenant, not knowing his own future , can hardly offer a stable future to his men.

Farmhouses and cottages are seldom offered with fbt land, and never at a sustainable rent.

As to your building scheme, why did you not offer the land free to suitable people to build their own subject to sect 75? I have put this very scheme forward to our local council.

about your super dairy, it is ludicrous.

the vegetable waste will be full of every chemical under the sun, and it will all end up in the milk.

Now John this is where we drift apart. I would sooner turn down the land free of cost than have to go in with two others. Any two others in the world. Most farmers will agree with me, that is why we are farmers and not in some other business where "partners" are an accepted part of the way to live. Farmers are loners. City folks, whether born and bred there or migrants, are communal people, gregarious even, and some cannot live without others. My wife goes many weeks without seeing anyone other than me (I think 3 months is about the record in the N'land winter of 1978/9) and despite me being no John Wayne, is quite happy that way. I have to go into twon every now and again, but would be quite happy to stay put.

glasshouse:

john, this is old ground for most others posters familiar with my rants, but here goes anyway.

Short term tenancies are the death of farmers and farming. They denude the tenant of all natural and legal rights,  denude the land of fertility , and lead to a general decline in the appearance and fitness for purpose of the countryside.

The effect on the workers is just as pronounced, as the tenant, not knowing his own future , can hardly offer a stable future to his men.

Farmhouses and cottages are seldom offered with fbt land, and never at a sustainable rent.

As to your building scheme, why did you not offer the land free to suitable people to build their own subject to sect 75? I have put this very scheme forward to our local council.

Glasshouse, As I said, short term deals find no favour with me at all, seven years with auto-renewal rights however, are sensible. I want to see farm land used for farming. It is annoying to see green-belt land on the edge of a village being built on before a disused haulage yard 800 metres further down the road. The real answer according to my wife is that I am a control freak, but what I wanted to achieve was energy efficiency from the design stage, use combined heat and power with absorption chilling and the the CO2 being fed to greenhouses to promote plant growth, the architect did a fantastic job. The Chartered Engineer did the calculations to prove the case, but planning just thought the concept too futuristic. As to giving the land for free, sadly, in my experience, giving stuff away, automatically devalues it, My kids as wonderful as they are see mobile phones as a product they do not have to look after, they see them given to me on my contract, free in their eyes, not taking into account the monthly charges, I have seen them leave them on benches, on the beach, at school, but their iPod which cost them money is protected like the crown jewels. So I have this simplistic view, I relate everything to the world I know and understand.

Old McDonald In the UK, farmers already have partners quite often, and sometimes partners that they are no even aware of, banks for example. As to being loners, that surprises me, back when I was younger at harvest, lambing everyone pulled together as a community. I still travel around Kent often, talk to farmers, I still love visiting Ashford market (Managed by Hobbs Parker), and I feel the sense of community. But life is grand, the beauty of it, is we as civilised people can agree and disagree about things and still be friends and still co-operate. It's a wonderful world.

in days gone by, landowners donated land for schools etc, probably trying to ease their consciences, as they pillaged the rural economy .

people like you need to take a lead, give the land free of charge for locals to build their own house to their own needs. it might make you rather popular.

the council could hardly refuse the planning permission.

jk, working together is totally different to farming land in partnership. In Australia the tasks of dipping sheep, shearing, mustering and carrying out cattle work, harvesting, etc. were all such large scale that I frequently worked with my neighbours. Now, in a semi-half-retired sort of way my scale is so small that I share some equipment with another "estrangeiro" about 5 miles away. It is often essential to operate this way, but it is different to being in partnership.

Sorry, glasshouse, but I totally agree that once something is free of charge it loses all value. That seems to be such an obvious statement when it is written down. I had not realised it was so simple. 

 

glasshouse:

Short term tenancies are the death of farmers and farming. They denude the tenant of all natural and legal rights,  denude the land of fertility , and lead to a general decline in the appearance and fitness for purpose of the countryside.

I agree that this is the case when the tenant has long term aims. (and in agriculture a long term aim must surely be to 'add' to the condition of the soil and its ability to sustain life beyond the immediate future).

The same long term view is taken by many people who work throughout their lives not only to add longer term value to their land but also to their families. This is why I think that so called inheritance taxes are wrong. The politicians who advocate these taxes from anyone who has 'saved' for his family are robbing the future and spending today.

i dont think you can classify the provision of a building site along with giving away a phone.

my solution to the rural housing problem would keep these communities alive, which you all say you want, but are unwilling to act.

did the local lord who gave land for a school think that school would be valueless?

if local people built their own houses, they would look after them, and they would have some comfort in old age.

contrast that with the rural poor now crammed in "affordable" homes, the new ghettos of today

glasshouse, I get the impression that a few of us, including yourself of course, are indeed thinking along the same lines of keeping local communities "alive", but we have slightly differing views on how to achieve the same end. Rural depopulation around the world, and particularly in Europe,  is a much bigger problem than the vast majority, and I mean vast majority, of people realise.

I am pleased that I have never had to endure the problems you have through your tenancy, so obviously I do not see things the way you do simply because I have not had the same experience. Again, a few of us are at odds with a few others on different threads on these FWi forums due mainly I think to our experiences. My own experiences have always been through ownership of varying sized blocks of land and never a tenancy so I cannot possibly know how it feels to be in your position. When people say "I know how you feel" they tell a lie. Without the experience they can only guess how you feel.

I have always advocated ownership of one's own home and land because I am in complete agreement with you that if someone owns their own home they will look after it far better than as a tenant. I rented a house for a little over a year when I moved to Scotland from Australia and it took a brief time before I hesitated about things like painting the garden gates to make the place look more presentable - purely because they were not my garden gates.  I had never imagined I would think that way. 

well said old mac.

 

glasshouse:

well said old mac.

 

Yes well said, but, there are many people who are tenants, and invest quite a bit in the property. I have rented out a portfolio of houses and flats out, and have over the years had some really great tenants, I even had a bunch of students that came to me, and said they could not afford the paint, but If I could provide some, they would like to paint the house, they did a really good job, and to my surprise, did the outside and inside by time they were finished. Decent people are decent people, that is what I have found, but for long term stability, and investment, ownership, or long term tenant security is best.

I think it's a real shame when rural communities lose services like their shop or bank or pub. As I see it, it's partly been an inevitable consequence of population changes but it's also true that sometimes people don't use these services then wonder why they disappear! A good example is village dwellers hopping in their car to do a supermarket-shop, rather than using the village store. Of course, they would say that the local shop doesn't have the range and can't compete on price, which in many instances is perfectly true. 

I'm really interested in the idea of community-owned or community-managed shops - they're hard to make work but there are some fantastic examples out there...

Tim.Relf:

I think it's a real shame when rural communities lose services like their shop or bank or pub. As I see it, it's partly been an inevitable consequence of population changes but it's also true that sometimes people don't use these services then wonder why they disappear! A good example is village dwellers hopping in their car to do a supermarket-shop, rather than using the village store. Of course, they would say that the local shop doesn't have the range and can't compete on price, which in many instances is perfectly true. 

I'm really interested in the idea of community-owned or community-managed shops - they're hard to make work but there are some fantastic examples out there...

Well said, that man, supporting local businesses and services in truly the best way to save them. The formation of Community Interest Companies, can make a huge difference, and communities can take it has far as they want to. For example, does everyone in a village need a car, if their are five families with 16 secondary school children between them, is it not better to have a community minibus to take them too and from school rather than five cars, each making a six mile return journey twice a day, 200 days a year 12,000 miles driven reduced to 2,400. We tracked just five cars using electronic trackers, never were 3 in use simultaneously, so actually, two were surplus. How often have you had a seven seat people carrier but it is just you and your wife going to lunch, or you have had a small car, and you want to bring a chair home from the auction house. Communities need to look internally, think about doing things between them. How about ten houses in a street having a deal with a insurance company, all the household insure with one company, It caused a 10% reduction in the rates, however when they agreed to have a relay fitted to their security alarms to cause the internal buzzer to sound in the other houses, a further 40% reduction was available, the insurers working on the principle that it is highly unlikely all 10 houses would be empty at the same time. The total annual saving, 10 houses, house and contents insurance combined was £4020, and that went down to £2178.80. By the way, none have the house have been broken into since, 3 years ago, before the scheme it averaged two per annum. Small Changes can make real differences.

john kirby, you never answered the question about land for housing.

glasshouse:

john kirby, you never answered the question about land for housing.

Sorry, Glasshouse, I thought I had. I think there is a big difference between the Lord of the Manor situation, and modern day, I do not think I ever said I was a charity, I like many here, am a businessman with a social conscience. Whilst many around me were doing nothing I was attempting to do something different and positive, with legal safeguards in place. The fact remains if I could not get planning not would have self-build. I stand by my comment, giving away land, reduces it perceived value which was the analogy I put forward with the mobile phone. I stand by my original answer.

As to your building scheme, why did you not offer the land free to suitable people to build their own subject to sect 75? I have put this very scheme forward to our local council.

Glasshouse, As I said, short term deals find no favour with me at all, seven years with auto-renewal rights however, are sensible. I want to see farm land used for farming. It is annoying to see green-belt land on the edge of a village being built on before a disused haulage yard 800 metres further down the road. The real answer according to my wife is that I am a control freak, but what I wanted to achieve was energy efficiency from the design stage, use combined heat and power with absorption chilling and the the CO2 being fed to greenhouses to promote plant growth, the architect did a fantastic job. The Chartered Engineer did the calculations to prove the case, but planning just thought the concept too futuristic. As to giving the land for free, sadly, in my experience, giving stuff away, automatically devalues it, My kids as wonderful as they are see mobile phones as a product they do not have to look after, they see them given to me on my contract, free in their eyes, not taking into account the monthly charges, I have seen them leave them on benches, on the beach, at school, but their iPod which cost them money is protected like the crown jewels. So I have this simplistic view, I relate everything to the world I know and understand.

The rental income from the houses for 48 weeks, would come back to me as a business, and work equivalent of four weeks rent would help the community, this would have meant over the 15 houses, 60 weeks of labour would be invested in the village. I think the scheme had merits, my opinion, others did not.