Chapter 7
The Planning Office of The Land Is Ours

Index | Who are we? | Contact us | Newsletters | Defining Rural Sustainability
Planning for Sustainable Woodlands | Planning Precedents | DIY Planning Briefing Papers


Chapter 7 News

The following issues are available below:

Winter 2002

Spring 2002


Winter 2002

Editorial

Enforcement

That Roundhouse

Green Paper

Land Ownership

Appeals and Applications

Projects

Bits and Pieces

Publications


 

Letter from the Lone Editor

IÍm afraid this is a not a very festive issue of Chapter 7 News, consisting mainly of horror stories about refused appeals and rejected applications, and our reflections on the difficult matter of enforcement actions. It is also ( mercifully) on the short side. This is for two reasons. The first is that Jyoti is away in Andhra Pradesh, India, for 6 weeks, where she is campaigning with local farmers. The peasants there are facing a planning problem of an altogether different scale. The Vision 2020 strategy for the state of Andhra Pradesh, funded with money from the UK Government, schedules the removal from their lands over the next two decades of some 20 to 25 million peasants „ 30% of Andrha PradeshÍs population „ to be replaced by machines, chemicals and genetically engineered crops. The majority of peasants are less than enthusiastic about being herded into sprawling metropolises like Bombay to manufacture baubles for the developed world. Jyoti will report back next issue.

Our Report on PPG7

It is also shorter because we have been concentrating on the 40 page report which we shall be presenting to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and to other bodies, on our proposals for reform of Planning Policy Guidance 7 on the Countryside. PPG7, which is up for review or replacement shortly, contains much of the policy that makes it so difficult for people to establish a low impact life in the countryside. Our report has been drawn up with the help of the PPG7 Reform Group, which has been corresponding on the subject for over a year. The thrust of the report is three-fold: 1. The policies on agriculture, and on agricultural dwellings in PPG7 do not reflect the current situation, and do not provide for the needs of smallholders, independent woodland managers and similar people whose enterprises can only be sustained if they live on their holding. 2. PPG7 does not provide for highly sustainable residential developments in the countryside, even though it does allow large well-designed country houses. 3. PPG7 says nothing about the affordable housing problem in the countryside, and does not consider the potential for various forms of low impact development to help resolve this problem. The report offers a number of recommendations for changes to PPG7 (or whatever replaces it), although in the case of number 3, low impact housing, we consider that Government research into the matter is the most immediate requirement. Our report is supported by over 90 short case studies. We will be sending all our subscribers a four page summary of the report, due out early next year. We need as much help as we can get publicizing this document. The revision of PPG7 is, by all accounts, going to be a major one, and possibly provide a model for more widespread changes to policy guidance. It is the biggest opportunity there may be to get things changed for some time. If you are willing to help with publicizing the launch of this document, either nationally or locally, please get in touch. Thanks to all of you who have contributed to Chapter 7 and its magazine over the year and a Happy New Year to you all. from Simon and Jyoti. Most of the next issue will devoted to the subject of ñTransportî, and in particular to how more people living and working in the countryside could result in less car transport, rather than more. If you have anything you want to contribute „ articles, cuttings, cartoons or photos „ do send them in. And thanks to all of you who sent us material for this issue.

Chapter 7Ís New Year Competitions

The Art Competition

We are looking for a very simple line drawing, woodcut or similar black and white image to go on the fro nt cover of our forthcoming report (see this page) which sums up or evokes what we are saying. Remember, the report is going to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and various other august bodies, as well as the press and the public. Whoever sends us an illustration that we use will receive a prize of £50, plus a complete set of Chapter 7 News back issues. Runners up will be published in the magazine.

The Literary Competition

We still havenÍt found a good title for our report. The nearest we have got is something like Creating Opportunities for Sustainable Livelihoods and Affordable Homes in the Countryside. This is a bit of a mouthful and would do better as a subtitle.Whoever thinks of a snappy, eye-catching title that we use will receive £20, plus a complete set of back issues. Deadline for both competitions: sometime in the first half of January, but phone us for more details.

Gypsy Site Trashed By Council

Over the last three months a vigerous campaign has been run to assist a large group of Romany travellers at Woodside in Hatch, Mid Beds.The travellers had collectively paid £300,000 for a site which had planning permission for holiday caravans, but were persistently refused planning permission for a permanent site, including at two public inquiries. Apparently Prescott turned down a called-in decision, but we have been unable to verify this; on the whole Prescott has had a good record in gypsy cases. Mid Beds have spent half a million pounds on enforcement procedures, and on 4 November sent bailiffs in who trashed the electricity, water fittings and hardstanding on a number of vacated sites. Cliff Codona and his family are still on the site pursuing a Court of Appeal case re-examine the way the application was handled is due to be heard. Local authorities tend to have less compunction about enforcing against gypsies and travellers than they do about other people. A similar case is coming to a head, at Dale Farm, near Basildon. About 30 traveller families are seeking planning permission on a former scrap yard, right next to existing travellerÍs plots, but have been served with enforcement notices and stop notices. One of them, Patrick Egan, told us ñThe Government has told travellers to buy sites, but wherever we buy them we get refused. If we buy them in the country they say it s spoiling the countryside; if we buy expensive development land they say they donÍt want us on their doorstep; if we buy plots next to other travellers, they say thereÍs too many of us.î

Contacts: Woodside: Gratton Puxon 01206 523 528; Dale Farm: Patrick Egan 07788 732951.

When Enforcement Means Eviction

In Chapter 7 News No 9, we warned that the Green Paper on planning raised the possibility of making development without planning permission a criminal offence, and of penalizing people who put in retrospective planning applications. This would severely affect many of our readers who are either facing enforcement proceedings to evict them from their homes, or are putting in retrospective applications to keep their homes. The government now, thankfully, appear to be backing off from this agenda. In September the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister issued a consultation paper entitled Review of the Planning Enforcement System in England which states:

´ ñThe Government . . . believes that criminalization would be an inappropriate and disproportionate response. Criminalization seems too draconian a penalty given the minor and often unwitting nature of the vast majority of breaches of planning control. We would welcome views on this issue.î

´ ñRetrospective applications continue to have a role to play in legitimising unauthorized developmentsî; and ñhigher fees for retrospective planning applications would be counterproductive . . . We would, however be grateful for further views on thisî

This is a great relief. These measures were probably aimed at other targets such as unscrupulous businesses, but, as we pointed out to the government in our response to the green paper, they would cause huge problems for people trying to stake a home for themselves. The most worrying thing in the enforcement consultation paper is a proposal to abolish the 10 year rule for a certificate of lawful use (which affects residential caravans), but not the 4 year rule for certificate of lawfulness of a dwelling house. This would discriminate against the poorest section of the community, (the fact that caravans have to wait 10 years, while dwelling houses only have to wait 4 years is already discriminatory). Chapter 7 is urging the Government, if it goes ahead with scrapping the 10 year rule, to slot residential caravans under the 4 year rule.

Lessons from the Death of Mrs C . . .

Over the last few weeks Chapter 7 has been giving advice to a couple „ lets call them Mr. and Mrs. C „ who are facing an enforcement notice, The couple, decided they wanted to do something constructive in their forthcoming retirement, and so they sold their bungalow and bought 15 acres of land to operate a refuge for wild and semi-domestic animals. They had the backing of the RSPCA in this project.

For the first 18 months, while they were setting up the project, they stayed in a mobile home on a friendÍs nearby farm. However, an enforcement notice was served, they had to leave the farm and they moved onto a mobile home on their own land. Another enforcement notice arrived within a matter of weeks, and here Mr C made a fatal mistake. He failed to understand that he had only 28 days to appeal, and missed the deadline.

It was at this point that Mr C contacted Chapter 7, in a state of desperation. We advised him to put in a planning application for the caravan, and to look at other possible ways of living on the land that might not be in breach of the enforcement notice.

Then in the middle of November, we heard from another Chapter 7 subscriber, that Mrs C, one evening, had walked out of the caravan and taken her own life. The prime reason for her depression was the enforcement notices and the looming realization that they had sold their home for a piece of land that the local authority would not let them live on.

We have since heard from Mr C, who tells us that he intends to fight on. ñIt was our dream . . . They have taken my wife, I am not going to let them take everything.î We are sure that readers of Chapter 7 News will join us in offering him our sympathy and support.

Coping With Stress

In the three and a half years that Chapter 7 has been in existence, this is the first case of suicide we have encountered, but it is by no means the first case of severe stress. We have been told of people who died of stress-induced illness after being enforced off their land, of people who have suffered breakdowns and are now on sedatives, and of families that have split up because one of the partners couldnÍt hack it. We have had a man on the phone close to tears after losing thousands of pounds in a high court case; and a woman, facing enforcement who answered our phone-call with the words: ñPlease, I canÍt bear to talk about the planning,î and put down the receiver.

The stress, we suspect, is more often felt by wives (though not especially by single women). This could have something to do with a greater need on the part of women for a secure home, but there is another factor. As one smallholder who recently conducted his own appeal told us: ñIts been OK for me because IÍve been doing all the negotiating with the council; its been more worrying for my partner, because she hasnÍt been so involved, and she feels powerless.î

It is partly for this reason that we recommend that people having planning difficulties do not hand over the whole problem to a planning consultant, but take an active role in negotiating with the local authority, with or without the aid of a consultant. We also recommend that, where a family situat ion is becoming stressful, both partners take an active role in formulating a response to the planners.

At Chapter 7 we are trying to improve our counselling skills, because we know that people turn to us, not just for advice, but also for moral support and for the knowledge that they are not the only people facing eviction from their home.

Enforcement that Leads to Eviction: A Special Case?

We hope, also, that the planning authorities may learn something from Mrs CÍs death. Enforcement procedures are currently under review by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. At present the procedure is exactly the same for an unscrupulous business which has changed the use of its land, or for a householder who has erected an unlawful conservatory, as it is for somebody who is threatened with eviction from their only home.

Furthermore, any criminal, however petty their crime, is automatically offered the services of a duty solicitor, and under certain circumstances can get legal aid. When homeowners are faced with enforcement, under the planning system, they are not criminals, but they are presently offered nothing in the way of legal or consultancy support until they are actually hauled up in court.

We shall be recommending to the Government that, whether or not they tighten up enforcement procedures, planning decisions and enforcement actions which could render people homeless should be placed in a special category, and that there should be some safeguards. In particular, we recommend that:

´ planning applications which, if refused, could lead to eviction should not be delegated to the planning officers but should go to a committee meeting;

´ that when an enforcement notice involves eviction from an only home, the family or individual(s) affected should be immediately offered a free consultation with a solicitor, qualified in planning law, who can be selected from a list provided by the local authority; and should have the same opportunities for legal aid as they would have if they were accused an offence.

Of course, such measures do not tackle the root of the problem. The reasons why Mr. and Mrs C.Ís efforts to undertake a worthy and beneficial project led to tragedy, are complex. It is the long term task of Chapter 7 to unravel this problem; but in the interim, we believe that Government should take measures to ensure that there are no more casualties.

. . . And from the Death of Harry Collinson

Enforcement action to evict people from their homes in the last 10 years has been taken in the shadow of one traumatic event: the shooting of Harry Collinson, principal planning officer of Derwentside District Council, on 20 June 1991, by Albert Dryden.

Collinson was at the head of a team of council employees and bulldozers, converging on DrydenÍs home to destroy it. Dryden had threatened to shoot Collinson dead, and that is what he did. He was convicted of murder and imprisoned.

The events are described in Derwentside DCÍs own internal report into the affair.1 The conduct of the planning department is exonerated in respect of fulfilling its obligations. Dryden comes across as a difficult, violent character; Collinson as exceptionally brave, because he knew what he risked when he walked towards DrydenÍs house, for a cause that few people would chose to give their lives for.

But one also feels that Dryden was unnecessarily messed around. He wanted to pursue his agricultural,firewood and car-mechanics businesses, and wherever he tried to do it there was a reason why he couldnÍt. He had a measure of support from people in the community: one supporter was blocking the path of the bulldozer when Collinson was shot. No civilized person could condone what Dryden did; but one can understand how someone facing the bulldozing of their home might become unhinged, or driven to extreme measures. It was a tragedy, in the true meaning of the word, and the report describes how it unfolded.

Since then, local authorities have rightly handled enforcement cases involving eviction gingerly, except in the case of gypsies who (presumably) are considered to be accustomed to shifting. Planning Policy Guidance 18 leaves it to the discretion of local authorities whether and how they should pursue enforcement, and policies vary greatly. Information is difficult to get hold of, and Chapter 7 only has a very partial view of the situation. Her e is a summary of what we have gathered over the last six years.

Aside from traveller and gypsy cases, so far we know of

: ´ one case where a house was bulldozed;

´ one case where a mobile homeowner was imprisoned;

´ a case where a local authority towed off mobile homes;

´ one current case where a smallholder is facing having his mobile home towed off at his expense;

´ one case where someone living in his workshop on a smallholding was fined £1,500;

´ several cases where people have been fined in the order of £200-£300;

´ many cases where enforcement has been delayed, often many years, by a war of attrition involving numerous applications, appeals and court cases;

´ several cases where the applicant has no legal recourse and is threatened with imminent enforcement action;

´ and a few cases where a local authority has declined to take any action.

We have been told, off the record, that one local authority has an unspoken policy of not pursuing enforcement action where it leads to eviction, and we suspect that there may be others with this policy.

This ñflexibleî approach is something that does not exist in law, and is a peculiar characteristic of the English planning system which Chapter 7 values. We welcome the move by the ODPM not to criminalize development without planning permission, because this would make the matter of the right to stay in oneÍs home an inflexible legal matter from the start„ and that could lead to more tragedies.

We agree that there is a need to tighten up on enforcement on some abuses of the planning system, but this should not entail measures which force local authorities to evict people from their only home. The solution, we suspect, is to make special safeguards for enforcement cases which could lead to eviction; and to formulate a set of procedures which protect peopleÍs right to a home, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights „ and that includes gypsies.

1. Derwentside District Council, Report of an Internal Inquiry into the Handling of the Planning Dispute with Albert Dryden, May 1992. If you canÍt get a copy of this from Derwentside, Chapter 7 can photocopy it.

Tony WrenchÍs Roundhouse: The Park Responds

Tony WrenchÍs low impact roundhouse must be be demolished by March 2003. In the last issue we published an article by Tony, describing tricks that he felt Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority had carried out in the course of processing his applications. We invited his Development Control Officer, Catherine Milner, to respond, and this is a slightly shortened version of what she sent us.

It is with some concern and no little trepidation that I accept the invitation to respond to Tony WrenchÍs article entitled Jiggery Pokery (C7 News 10).

I feel that I am representing all those planning officers who, whilst tr ying to do the job set out for them by Central Government, in advising Members on planning issues, are being accused of being ñprejudiced, underhand, bullying, prying or corruptî „ or perhaps all five. On their behalf I take great exception to this generalized criticism of my profession and to the implication that in printing the article, I am guilty as charged. (EditorÍs note: these were not TonyÍs words, but were used by Chapter 7 in the introduction to his article, to describe the sort of allegations we frequently hear from smallholders and other people. We acknowledged that these were unsubstantiated, but said that they were so widespread we could not believe they were all without foundation.)

The Roundhouse at Brithdir Mawr has been the subject of a long and painful saga not only for Tony Wrench and Jane Faith, but also for officers and Members of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority.

First of all the facts:

Tony WrenchÍs house is in the National Park. ñNational Parkî is the highest designation that can be given and reflects the extremely high quality of the landscape. The Park authority is charged with conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and promoting the understanding and enjoyment of these special qualities. It also has responsibility for producing an overall plan for the Park, and the determination of planning applications.

At Brithdir Mawr, a 165 acre holding in the foothills of the Preseli Hills, various unauthorized forms of development were found. A group of people were living there who had specifically chosen not to apply for planning permission because, as they later indicated, they knew they would not get it. The majority of the issues were settled either by retrospective planning applications, or, in one case, the granting of a Certificate of Lawfulness.

The issue of the Roundhouse, however, remained. However designed, this was the erection of a new dwelling in the open countryside, totally contrary to both the central and local government policies. An Enforcement Notice requiring the vacation and demolition of the dwelling was served.A retrospective application was submitted and refused on policy grounds. An appeal against the enforcement notice was held at a th ree day public inquiry.The Planning Inspector visited the site on two occasions. He quashed the enforcement notice, but considered there was no justification for the dwelling, and granted temporary permission for 18 months to enable the applicants to make alternative housing arrangements.

Towards the end of the 18 months an application was made to retain the dwelling for a further two years on the grounds that a report on low impact development was awaited and presumably might lead to a change in policies. The Authority, even though it recognizes the problem and had indeed part-funded this research, could not assume that even when published, it would make recommendations of changes to policy, or whether any recommendations would be taken on board by the National Assembly. Such shifts in policy take a considerable time given the necessary opportunities that have to be made for public consultation and debate.

Again an appeal was lodged, and this time it was dismissed outright (see appeals section). A further enforcement notice was served. This has not been appealed against and gives the occupants until March next year to demolish the roundhouse.

No one can say that the democratic process has not been fully explored in this case by Tony Wrench.

So now to the so-called ñtricks.î The points made by Tony Wrench in his article are summarised in italics

TW: Telling the committee that ñno case had or could be madeî for the functional test, despite a Pembs County Council report saying that ñin terms of the functional requirements of the communityî there was a need.

´ I did not invent the functional and viability tests that every applicant wishing to erect a new dwelling in the countryside has to meet before any Authority can give planning permission. Whilst the couple may indeed work full-time on the holding there is no functional need for them to live there to do that. There are a number of other adults legitimately on site for the ñemergencyî situation that might arise.

TW: Members have been subtly advised against seeing our house for themselves.

´ Members of authorities do not see the vast majori ty of sites on which they make planning decisions. In this particular case a ñhigher authorityî „ two independent Appeal inspectors „ have visited the site, heard the arguments and found for the National Park Authority.

TW I have been denied a request to address the committee while applicants for a gaming alley were allowed to present a video to the committee

´ At the time Tony Wrench made this request, the planning committee did not permit applicants to address the committee. The video referred to was submitted as part of a planning application to illustrate to members the nature of the gaming centre. The applicants did not address the committee.

TW: The comments of the Town Council were not reported to the committee members.

The written comments of the town council were not received in respect of this application and a verbal message was not passed on to members. I have apologised for this.

TW: I asked three material considerations to be taken into account , but these were not reported by Ms Milner to the committee.

All the points made by Mr. Wrench were reproduced in the committee report that was placed before the members. I take great exception to the assertion that the committee has only been told half the story. That is not true, as the committee reports will testify. Even if this were the case in appealing Mr Wrench had the opportunity to ensure that the Inspectors had the whole story. They did not find in his favour.

Planning policies were not designed to purposefully stop Tony Wrench having a house in the countryside. They were designed to stop everyone having a house unless they could prove a justifiable need for the same. I am sure Mr Wrench would not like to see all the areas of open countryside built on. No such case on the basis of the present policy framework has been made.

The sustainability of the house and the self sufficiency of the lifestyle do not override the basic planning policies. This seems to be the belief that runs through the whole of Chapter 7 „ because we are doing something different and laudable, planning policies should not apply in the same way to us a s they do to the rest of the population.That is not a basis on which a democratic and civilized society can survive.

Prescott Takes Over the Green Paper

John Prescott ïs retreat from some of the proposals made in the planning Green Paper sounds a bit airy.

As we anticipated, Stephen Byers disappeared soon after the publication of the Planning Green Paper „ and back came John Prescott, to head a department, now shorn of its Transport responsibilities, and called, in his honour, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (or ODPM, pronounced ñoddpumî).

This may not such a bad thing because (a) Prescott appears to be human, unlike his predecessor; and (b) despite his two jags, he does go on quite a lot about sustainability and ñsustainable communitiesî. Even if his interpretation of sustainability is different from ours, thatÍs better than phasing the concept out as Byers was trying to do.

Prescott was left with the mess of the Green Paper on planning to sort out (see C7 News 9) „ including the re cord 16,000 responses to the consultation draft. He moved quite quickly to winnow out some of the dross, and on July 18 delivered a statement outlining how the department planned to proceed (see below). But not knowing quite what to put forward, he has let the planning system drift towards the trendy, undefined field of ñspatial planningî (see below).

What is Spatial Planning?

The phrase Spatial Planning (which has nothing to do with galactic bypasses) was hanging around in articles and papers on planning for quite a time before we managed to fathom what it meant, so we imagine many our readers are still in the dark. The Planning Green Paper bravely described it as ñplanning jargon.î But since then the Government has advocated both regional and local ñSpatial Strategiesî, so now it is policy; soon you may be corresponding with your local authorityÍs Spatial Planning Department.

The nearest thing we have found to a definition of ñspatial planningî is in the Royal Town Planning InstituteÍs attempt to rebrand itself as post-modern, in a document called A New Vision for Planning.

ñIn developing a New Vision for Planning we therefore use the term spatial planning. We do so to emphasise that planning is as much concerned with the spatial requirements for, and impacts of, policies, even where these do not require a ïland-useÍ plan, as it is with land-use zonings. The inter-relationships, for example, of governmental policy can only be properly demonstrated by consideration of their aggregate impacts.î

What this appalling piece of prose is trying to say, we think, is that land use planning policies should take more account of the objectives emerging from other government departments „ ie more joined-up thinking, better integrated policy-making. This is an admirable aim, but it would help if everyone understood what they were talking about; and if one got rid of the pretentious and meaningless word ñspatialî.

Main Points from PrescottÍs June 18 Statement

´ The proposal to decide on major infrastructure projects in parliament has been dropped, after intensive opposition from environmentalists, and the parliamentary committee which responde d to the green paper. ´ The proposal to drop county structure plans and increase the importance of regional guidance (now called Regional Spatial Strategy) is going ahead. This is worrying as the County Councils are elected while Regional Assemblies arenÍt.

´ Local plans will become known as Local Development Frameworks (and inevitably are expected to deliver a ñspatial strategyî). However, since there is now no hint of the proposals in the Green Paper to make them simpler, to reduce the reliance on site specific policies, or to rely on criteria based policies as a basis for development control, it is hard to see how they will be much different from existing local plans. The main change seems to be that local authorities will be able to update them bit by bit, rather than all at once, which may not be a bad idea.

´ Business Planning Zones are still in the pipeline. They will be required to supply an Environmental Impact Assessment before they go ahead.

´ The period of validity of a planning permission will be reduced from five years to three.

´ The Gen eral Permitted Development Order is going to be ñupdatedî. In another statement it was announced that the 28 day rule (which allows activities like camping to carry on for 28 days in the year) is not going to be abolished.

´ There will be a target that 90 per cent of all planning decisions will be delegated to the officers, rather than heard at committee. So much for democracy! However, Prescott does say that ñclearly this does not mean that decisions that are inappropriate to delegate should be delegatedî. Chapter 7 will be campaigning to get an assurance that planning applications which if refused could involve someone losing their home should not be delegated.

´ The time for an applicant to decide whether to lodge an appeal will be reduced from 6 months to three months.

´ Local authorities will be expected to let the public speak at planning committee meetings.

The Mormons at Mareham Lane

ñGirls gripping their handbags tighter, stared at a religious wounding . . . î

Betsy Ann Harper was born in Sleaford, Lincs, on 9 June 1850. Like many of her generation she took an emigrant ship from Liverpool; then she journeyed by train across the Eastern United States, and by steamboat to Florence Nebraska. There she joined a contingent of 50 horse teams, ten persons to each wagon. Betsy reached Salt Lake City, Utah, where, in 1871 she married Joseph from Colsterworth, who had been baptised a Mormon in 1857 and who had already married Sarah in 1868.

BetsyÍs husband worked for the Union Pacific Railroad Company and was at Promontory, Utah on the famous day when the silver spike was driven in to join up the continental railroad. Betsy was buried in Smithfield, Utah, next to Sarah, in 1913. Their husband, who lived to be 91, was buried with them in 1931.

Seven decades later, the church that Betsy married into is buying prime farmland all around Sleaford, Lincs. In an echo of that silver spike, the year 2002 saw the built up area of Sleaford meet, eyeball to eyeball, with Mormon landholdings across Mareham Lane.

No Tea, No Beer

Jesus Christ looks down from the office wall at AgReserves Ltd, headquarters of the largest foreign farmland owner in Britain. Gasping for a cup of coffee, I am politely told that tea and coffee are not served. Clive Jolliffe, the General Manager has agreed to answer my questions: ñ2,500 acres is now the viability threshold in arable farmingî he states. I think back to Tooreenbeg, my own former farmhouse in West Cork. When it had 150 hill acres it was the largest farm for a long way.

In the shadow of Bass Maltings, a monument to booze, prairie farming is now conducted by people with principles. One of them is that no crops are grown to make beer, another is no Sunday working. A third is that there are no genetically modified crops, though this may be a nod to European sensitivities until or politicians fall in line with Salt Lake City.

IÍm so nervous about misquoting Mr Jolliffe, that I write out my notes and send him them for correction:

ñWe have experienced problems farming in the urban fringe (theft, vandalism etc) but are amenable to public interest issues and positively i nterested in switching the subsidy regime to address environmental concerns . . . We accept the long term planning framework of Sleaford Civic Trust. We are open and receptive to discussion about the implications of urban fringe advances towards Lodge Farm . . . and about buying land in Brauncewell.î Sleaford surrounded!

ñWe Farm the Land, They Get the Biblesî

My partnerÍs daughterÍs boyfriend is the son of a Lincolnshire farmer. A real, hands dirty get-up-early farmer between Market Deeping and Bourne. I ask him: ñwhy are you getting out of farming?î. He replies that thereÍs no money in it. So whatÍs in it for the Mormon Church and the Crown Estate, who between them encircle Sleaford?

Mr. Jolliffe says that it is to obtain a commercial return which is more than the capital they would get earning interest in a bank. It is used to fund missionary work in less developed countries. It makes commercial sense because the taxpayers of the EU and the US pay for production subsidies weighted towards arable prairies of 2,500 acres, shutting out and impoverishing the worldÍs less developed producers.

Since the Roman occupation, Mareham Lane and its like have been depopulated. Betsy Ann left the land in the 1940s; my partnerÍs daughterÍs boyfriend is leaving it now. The public wants subsidies reduced to sensible levels and directed to wholesome food, humane production, smallholdings, hedgerows, coppice, clean water, variety in the landscape. Where better to start breathing life back into the countryside than Mareham Lane?

Brynley Heaven (shortened version)

Welsh Low Impact Report

The report on Low Impact Development commissioned by the Welsh Assembly, scheduled for release in September, has still not been released. It is apparently subject to a restricted consultation process, and has been viewed by a number of bodies, including the Planning Inspectorate.

Inquiry into Sustainable Housing

The Parliamentary Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has initiated an inquiry into ñsustainable housing and communitiesî. Chap ter 7 has sent a response to the inquiry which is available from us, on request.

Thumbs Down All Round for Group Applications

Brithdir Mawr

In September, Tony Wrench lost a second appeal to save his turf-roofed roundhouse at Brithdir Mawr community , in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there was no need for Tony or his partner Jane, to live there, even though he acknowledged that they couldnÍt carry out their work properly if they lived somewhere else.

ñThe appellant,î he wrote, ñhas acknowledged that no one in the community is indispensable . . . Consequently . . . I conclude that there is no essential need for Mr Wrench and his partner to live in the roundhouse.

ñThere are already a considerable number of people living and working at Brithdir Mawr and there must be a limit to the number who can justify the need for a dwelling on the holding itself. Otherwise there would be no limit and any number of people could use the same argument to justify a new dwelling in the open countryside. That would be a nonsense.î

Of course there has to be a limit „ nearly all communities set limits to their numbers to ensure a balanced group of people in line with the carrying capacity of their land. Tinkers Bubble currently has a ceiling of 12 adult members, legally agreed with the local authority. The Inspector makes no attempt to find out what BrithdirÍs limits on numbers are, and seems to be implying that they havenÍt got any.

The logical conclusion of his line of argument is that communities should be restricted to the minimum number of people necessary to ensure that chickens are put away, goats are rescued and so on. Effectively, this means that there should be no new communities at all in the countryside.

Contrary to rumours that have been circulating, TonyÍs roundhouse is still standing. www.thatroundhouse.info ; Brithdir Mawr, Newport, Pembs. Appeal ref: APP/L9503/A/02/1095455)

Steward Wood „ Tried and Tested

In a surprise decision in an enforcement appeal, an Inspector reversed the decision of an earlier planning appeal Inspector, and allowed permission for the bender community at Steward Wood, in Dartmoor National Park, on the basis that the functional and financial tests in Annex I of PPG7 were inappropriate.

Not altogether surprisingly, Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) are challenging the decision in the High Court, arguing that ñthe Inspector should have applied (as the previous Inspector did) the test of functional and financial viability set out in Annex I of PPG7, but failed to do so.î

Pete Cow, a member of Steward Wood commented: ñwe are disappointed by this move, which will mean a lot more time and energy and money being spent by us and the DNPA on an issue we thought had finally been resolved. It seems strange and sad that just two months after the Government gave the National Parks a million pounds to promote sustainable development, that they are so obstinately and expensively trying to close down our sustainable project.î

What sort of sustainable developments are these funds aimed at? According to Martin Fitton, Chief Executive of the Association of National Park Authorities ñThese Funds will challenge organizations, individuals and businesses to come forward with new ideas for achieving a more sustainable way of living in the countryside, and they will be aimed at innovative ideas so that they can be tried and tested.î

Tested according to Annex I, and tried in the law courts, it seems.

Contacts: 01647 440233; affinity@stewardwood. org; appeal ref: APP/J9497/C/01/1067412.

Warren Fruit Farm

Not really a community, but this farm divided into smallholdings and rented out mainly to former seasonal agricultural workers , elicits much the same panic reaction from planners. An application by four of the families for 12 months temporary permission in order for them to assess how best to operate their holdings was turned down by Tewkesbury DC. Jim Aplin and Hayley Moreland, who run a box scheme from the site, (see photo) for a temporary agricultural mobile hom e, were also refused permission for an agricultural residential caravan They went to public inquiry on 19 November, where Chapter 7 gave evidence, but the appeal was dismissed , on the grounds of lack of functional need, and the fact that an absence of suitable accommodation in a nearby village had not been ñconclusively provedî. Contact: via Chapter 7

Holywell Fields Refused

After three years of negotiation and hassle, Holywell Fields were refused planning permission for a low impact settlement, with five dwellings, on 28 acres of land in Buckinghamshire. the group has been running a box scheme and poultry enterprise, and plans to expand into cattle, honey, fruits, and crafts using local materials.

Aylesbury Vale planning officers recommended against giving the project permission on the grounds that the sustainability of the project, the provision of employment and affordable housing, the revival of traditional local crafts,the provision of local food and other material considerations did not ñhave sufficient weight to justify a decision that would be contrary to Central Government advice contained in PPG7, and the Development Plan policy.îOne wonders what would have sufficient weight.

Mike George, Pond Cottage East, Cuddington Road, Dinton, Aylesbury, HP18 0AD, 01296 747737; mike.george@euphony.net

Turners Field

Ann Morgan, lost her appeal for a temporary dwelling on the permaculture site in Somerset where she has lived for the last 15 years (see C7 News 9, p.11).

The Inspector viewed that ñthe appellantÍs pursuit of a lifestyle based in Permaculture derived from a genuinely held belief and that this was capable of falling within the rights conferred by Article 9î (of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.) Making her leave her land would be an interference with this right. But he viewed that the reason for the interference was because insufficient food-growing was taking place on the land for the project to qualify as permaculture. ñIn this sense the action was not an interference with a right to manifest the belief, but a response to the AppellantÍs failure to pursue it consistently.î

Just before going to press, Ann lost her appeal to the High Court, where it was ruled to the effect that ñwithout any visible productivity it is just a personal preference.î Ann, who is in her sixties, is very bitter that her teaching activities on the land are not regarded as productive.

APP/R3325/C/00/1051594

Chicken Farmer Ordered to ñWind Up Businessî

As we go to press L Radwan and his wife are applying to Cherwell DC (Oxon) for a silo, barn and temporary mobile home on their 45 acre chicken farm. They presently have 3,000 hens, and are aiming for 7,000 organic birds. The local authority recommended has recommended refusal with these extraordinary words: ñEither the business [with its structures] should stay, or it does not and the enterprise should be wound up. The Head of Planning and Development Services recommends the latter approach . . . and to take Enforcement action.î

The application was supported by the NFU, the Soil Association and the Diocese of Oxford. One letter from a member of the public stated: ñThe profits shown on his calculations will put most other farmersÍ books to shame „ many of them farming much larger acreages. If the applicantÍs figures are correct he is bucking the national trend.î This was cited as an objection, presumably on the grounds that the writer was suggesting that the calculations were not correct. Our experience is that smallholders who get their act together do buck the national trend.

More Horror Stories

In S Norfolk, John Fisher a rabbit farmer, with a wife and three children, has had a Section 178 Notice to remove his caravans within 28 days, or have them moved by the local authority at his expense. This is an unusually vicious reaction, and seems particularly harsh, since Mr. Fisher hasnÍt even had the opportunity to go to appeal. The land, already had an enforcement notice against caravans on it when he bought it. Mr. Fisher was given 12 months temporary residence in 2001, but when he came to renew it, the application didnÍt even g to committee, but was delegated and refused.

David Doe, a Romany, whose cattle a nd poultry operation in Wychavon D (Droitwich) has returns of £21,000. He phoned us in a state of shock, since he had just been to High Court and lost his appeal for a mobile home (partly on viability grounds) and landed up with a bill for £12,000.which he has to pay out of his life savings. He had been advised to go to court by a lawyer who (Doe was later informed by a travellerÍs support group), ñis definitely to be avoidedî.

Finally, in one of Chapter7Ís longest running cases, Ann Ridley, a 70 year old woman running a 250 acre organic farm in Devon from a wooden shack subject to a 1998 enforcement notice is being taken to magistrates court by S Hams DC for the second time. The first time (in 2001) she received a fine of £300.

Good News

There are a few bits of good news. David Gillen, (who we call the pig man at Chapter 7, because when heÍs phoned up we have ended up talking more about pigs than about planning) has received 5 years temporary residential on his 33 acre agroforestry holding in Shropshire.

Meanwhile Robin Gillan (no rela tion) managed to get temporary permission for a mobile home on a 50 acre chicken farm near Sidmouth. However, this and other planning problems cost him £19,000 in consultancy fees.

STOP PRESS The Hollies in Co. Cork Ireland has been given permission, at the third try, for 4 low impact homes, in a location where normal housing was unacceptable.

Interested in Buying Land?

It is an unfortunate fact that, because of the demand for pony paddocks, small plots of land sell for high sums; in many regions in the South of England a single acre sometimes sells for as much as £20,000, and 5 acres can go for £5,000 per acre. It is often only when you get above the 25 acre mark that you can start to buy land at agricultural prices.

It therefore makes sense for smallholders to club together to buy a large area of land. This is one reason why the community at Tinkers Bubble came about. Its 40 acres cost £1,350 per acre.

However, there are many people who, understandably, shy away from totally communal set-ups, and would prefer to have a measure of independent ownership, even though they might welcome having access to some common land and living in a ñhamletî of people with similar aspirations and interests.

In 1999 Chapter 7 drew up a proposal for a consortium who wanted to buy a 145 acre arable and beef farm near Yeovil and divide it into smallholdings. The Bridge Farm project projected half a dozen smallholdings of three to eight acres, each with a low impact dwelling, and a number of live/work rural craft units in some converted farm buildings. The rest of the farm, about 100 acres was to be owned co-operatively and run, at least initially, by a farm manager who would convert it to organic. About 20 acres of woodland would be planted, and there was to be a farm shop. Smallholders would have the opportunity of renting more land from the co-op or of buying (with money or through work) hay, feed, use of machinery etc from it.

The consortium put in a bid of £510,000, but this was unsuccessful and the farm went to an expanding beef farmer for about £550,000. The main problem was the farmhouse, which doubled the value of the property, and didnÍt fit well into the Bridge Farm sch eme. The consortium was trying to locate a sympathetic user for the house.The investors went on to put their money into other things, but Chapter 7 is now thinking of reviving the scheme, and has one potential farm, coming up for sale, in mind.

Meanwhile, Chas Griffin has outlined a proposal for a similar project in the Henry Doubleday Research Association magazine The Organic Way. The New Leaf Project, as it is called, envisages buying a 500 acre farm barley farm in East Anglia and splitting it up into a number of different holdings:

ñThe split up might be into one 150 acre farm; two 50 acre holdings, ten 10 acre holdings , plus 50 acres split into twenty lots of varying sizes.î

This leaves 100 acres to be managed collectively, as in the Bridge Farm project, but New Leaf envisages a 100 acre training and visitors centre for woofers, holiday-makers, university agronomists gardening clubs etc. At that size, it sounds like an alternative to Stoneleigh Agricultural Centre.

The article in The Organic Way doesnÍt mention anything about planning, but doubtle ss this is among the ñsnags and problemsî that Chas states that he has been thinking about.

Despite the difference in scale, both schemes are similar. Chas told us that he had many responses to his article, though there there was considerable variation in what people actually wanted.

We suspect there are many people who would be potentially interested in such schemes, at Chapter 7 we are beginning to compile a list of people who might be interested.

If you are interested, write to Chapter 7, and/or to Chas Griffin c/o The Organic Way, Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry, CV8 3LG

The Ripple Project

The aim of the Ripple Project is ñto establish an area which will be used as a prototype an training centre to promote labour-friendly, self-sufficient, environmentally sustainable, bioregional, autonomous spaces to meet the need of the immediate community, sell surplus foodstuffs and craft work on site, and to promote bioregional eco-activityî. The project envisages 50 acres of lan d: 35 would be put down to forest farm, 10 acres for animals (hens, geese, goats, pigs and draft animals); 5 acres for veg etc. and an acre or two for accommodation. The project sounds good , but it its just on paper, no land as yet. The Ripple Project: atgrallen@ yahoo.com

Consultancy for New Landowners

ñBack to the Future in Rural Britainî is the slogan of Robert Jeffrey and David Morris, two organic farmers who have started up a consultancy called NewLandOwner, directed towards new entrants into farming and land management, particular on smaller acreages. They offer advice on farming methods, conservation,, grants, designing business and management plans, dealing with bureaucracy, and planning, and they also can conduct property searches.

The consultancy is run from Aston House Farm, a 250 acre grass and arable farm, which went into organic conversion two years ago. This is how it is described in their brochure:

ñRobert, the third generation of his family to farm at Aston House, can remember the argument between hi s grandfather and father concerning the wisdom of ordering the first load of fertiliser. Shortly afterward a sprayer arrived and they were on the slippery slope, along with every other farmer, cajoled and encouraged by ICI and ADAS. Yields increased, costs increased and after an initial improvement profits decreased . . . Having farmed without chemicals since 97 Robert now realises how well Mother Nature copes without them when managed sympathetically. Once again we feel like real farmers, working with the soil, the stock and the seasons.î

Friends and Families of Travellers

FFT now have a planning section on their website: www. f-f-t,demon,co.u/planning/index.htm

Earthships

Earthships „ US designed solar powered homes and work-spaces built from tyres and earth „ have come to the UK . The first project is in Fife, and there is another in Brighton. Chapter 7Ís local authority, South Somerset DC, nearly took up the package for its waste tip three years ago, but a straw bale structure was chosen instead.

Being rural Luddites, we are not sure why you canÍt build earthships out of just earth, or earth and wood; but waste tyres have to go somewhere, and they offer a structural advantage, particularly in earthquake-prone areas.

The Brighton Project is pioneered by the Low Carbon Network, which focusses upon ñbuildings which dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and are easy to build and runî. They aim to complete construction by Autumn 2003.

Contact Darren Howarth at info@lowcarbon.co.uk

Wealth Attracts Wealth

One of the main mechanisms favoured by the Government for increasing the numbers of affordable homes is to make developers provide or pay for a percentage of affordable homes on any large residential site, through the use of Section 106 Planning Agreements.

Recent research from the Rowntree Foundation reports that in 2000, about 12,000 affordable homes were provided in this way, out of a total of 38,000 affordable homes ( which is well short of the 67,000 -80,000 needed each year).

The Rowntree researchers say that as two thirds of these planning agreements involve Social Housing Grant money, they are simply providing sites for homes that would have been built anyway, or (in high cost areas) bringing schemes within the Housing Corporations cost limits. ñThe main result to date is to change the geography of new social housing provision, not to increase the total amount of affordable housing provided. On current evidence, were the Section 106 policy to reach its full potential, it would use up all and more of the additional SHG made available for new housing.î The more you look at it, the more it looks like yet another Blairish scheme to attract ñkey workersî and wealth to the South and let the North take a long walk off a short pier. Indeed the whole system of developersÍ contributions to the public purse through Section 106 planning agreements favours the wealthy parts of the country, because rich areas can extract much larger payments from developers than can poorer parts of the country. Planning Gain and Affordable Housing: Making It Count, by T. Crook et al, from York Publishing Services, 64 Hallfield Road, Layerthorpe, York. YO3 7ZQ..; 01904 430033.

Letter to the Editor Our review of Kevin CahillÍs book Who Owns Britain, suggested that the Irish rural economy is healthier than the English because land ownership is less concentrated. It elicited this response, which has been shortened.

On paper the Irish land ownership figures may look more ñdemocraticî than in the UK, but most Irish farmers know far less about soil and food values and production than most urban Britons, as can be seen when the latter move on, and get a cottage and an acre or two. Though the number of farmers may be 153,000, quite a few of them are are non-resident farmers who live in the nearest town and visit a piece of land with cattle on it twice a week. Often there is an empty farmhouse , or it is rented out expensively to non-nationals. Irish farmers pay one per cent of the income tax paid in the republic and are up to every scam imaginable. The bungalows are a plague and even Irish people complain about them. ñOne-offî holiday houses do not distribute wealth in my opinion. While there may be no council tax as such, because rates were abolished as a political ploy, there are refuse collection charges of a couple of hundred pounds a year, plus the cost o f a large wheelie bin, another £150, The alternative is to dump a ton of rubbish in the countryside, which is what the previous occupant of my house „ a British forestry worker „ has done. While it is probably easier in the Republic to live on a few acres by stealthily building a home out of a caravan or similar, the official attitude is that even 70 acres isnÍt enough to support a farmer, his bungalow, his four-wheel-drive, an abandoned JCB, etc, and the smallholdersÍ dole pays out £30 million a year to about 7000 small farmers. There is certainly no tradition of intensive agriculture, and local materials for building are scorned. There is a whole swathe of community activities absent from Ireland „ urban allotments, parish councils, the hospital car service, the Coop bank etc. If life is so marvellous here, why do you think the majority of Irish people prefer to live in the UK and elsewhere? Very best wishes Shri Krishna Shulerwallah, Ireland

Hemp Paper: The Medium is the Message

The inimitable John Hanson, champion of tree-free paper and one of EnglandÍs most refined Luddites, has persuaded us, as part of a complicated deal concerning the paper you now have in fr ont of you, to distribute his facsimile edition of the 1764 translation of MarcandierÍs Treatise on Hemp.

We agreed to this against our better judgment at first, since we try to restrict our merchandise to publications on planning and land rights issues. But John persuaded us that we ought to be extolling the virtues of the paper we are printed on.

Marcandier has some relevant things to say about the essentially rural nature of the hemp industry: ñThe commerce of France carried the principles of M. Colbert to an extravagant height, by multiplying prodigiously all the different manufactures that are settled in towns, without taking sufficient notice of those that ought to be dispersed through the country . . . Hemp, from its own nature, ought to be the object of a manufacture dispersed through the country . . . it can never, with any advantage, be the business of a manufacture crowded into a town.î

Current rural planning policy, as we have argued previously (see The Dowry, C7 News No 8) is part of a 250 year old conspiracy to do away with rural livelihoods and cram everybody, except the rich, into towns and suburbs. MarcandierÍs treatise makes it clear that the hemp industry was to become another victim of the same process.

Aside from being a historical and economic commentary, MarcandierÍs treatise is also a practical handbook on hemp growing and processing, with tips on cottage-scale retting, heckling and bleaching that anyone wishing to produce their own hemp fibre today is likely to find useful.

MarcandierÍs Treatise on Hemp, 1755, translation 1764, with a commentary by John Hanson, 101 pages, facsimile on hemp paper, is available from Chapter 7, £10, including postage.

Publications available from Chapter 7

Books and Reports

Low Impact Development, Simon Fairlie, published by Jon Carpenter, 1996.

Why English rural planning is unjust and unsustainable, and how low impact development offers a solution. £10 Defining Rural Sustainability: 15 Criteria for Sustainable Developments in the Countryside, together with 3 Model Policies for Local Plans, TLIO 1999 The document to give to your local planner or cite in your planning application; also available on our website: £5(£3 conc)

Planning for Sustainable Woodlands, Lucy Nichol, Simon Fairlie, Ben Law and Russell Rowley, published by Chapter 7 and the National Small Woods Association, June 2000 Planning problems faced by woodland workers. £2.50

Permaculture „ A New Approach for Rural Planning, Rob Hopkins, 1996 A study of the success or failure of various different permaculture projects in acquiring planning permission. £8.50

Cotters and Squatters, Colin Ward, published by 5 Leaves Books, 2002 A historical appraisal of British squatters and the ñone-night houseî. £10.00

A Treatise on Hemp, by M. Marcandier, facsimile 1764 edition edited and published by John Hanson, 1996. How to grow and process hemp, and why its production is beneficial for rural economies. £10.00

Planning DIY Briefings

There are now 10 do-it-you rself planning briefing sheets available. Minimum order £2.

No 1 Introduction to the Mysteries of the Planning System 6 pp. £1.20

No 2 Should I Move on First or Apply First?

3 pp. £0.60 No 3 Putting in a Planning Application 8 pp. £1.60

No 4 Caravans: Permitted Development and Seasonal Use 3 pp. £0.60

No 5 List of Low-Impact Friendly Consultants 4 pp. £0.80

No 6 Appeals 11 pp. £2.20

No 7 Certificates of Lawful Use: The Four and Ten Year Rules 3 pp. £0.60

No 8 Agricultural Workers Dwellings: Annex I of PPG 7 8pp. £1.60

No 9 Human Rights 5pp. £1.00

No 10 Permitted Development Rights 3pp. £0.60

or £9.00 for a modestly bound looseleaf edition of all 10

Mike FisherÍs How to get Planning Permission to Live on the Land 30pp. £3.00 Two page essay together with a copy of his successful planning application

Planning Library

Chapter 7 has a growing library of planning documents and reports relating to a number of low impact and sustainable applications. If you telephone us at the office we can research what you need and supply photocopied excerpts. Prices 12 to 20 pence per page, depending on size and research, inc p&p.

Appeals: TinkerÍs Bubble, Brickhurst Farm, Par, Plants for a Future, Brithdir Mawr, Kings Hill, Dommett Wood, Hugletts Wood and many others.

Case Law: Petter and Harris, Jarmain (agricultural viability), Millington (food processing), TinkerÍs Bubble (permaculture), Chapman v UK, Varey v UK and Porter v S. Bucks (human rights).

Applications. We have the full submitted paperwork for successful planning applications for agricultural residence including: Northdown Orchard (box schem e), Guilden Gate (smallholding) and Rawhaw Wood (woodland management).

Section 106 Agreements: Tinkers Bubble and Lothian Lowland Crofting

Chapter 7 News Back Issues

£2 each, 10 for £14, or complete set of 11 for £16. When we have the time we will produce an index.


Summer 2002


Why Does the Government Ignore Smallholders?

If you read your way through the recent Curry Commission report on Farming and Food, you wonÍt find the word smallholder once. All you will find, on page 53, is a few paragraphs on those farms ñwhich are considered part-timeî (which means farms that produce less than what is deemed necessary to provide a full-time minimum wage). These account for about 50 per cent of all farms in England, and in the CommissionÍs words ñplay a crucial role in the social and cultural fabric of rural areasî; yet only 0.3 per cent of the report is specifically devoted to them. The Commi ssion has no targeted policies to offer these farmers other than to advocate that they should become even more part time:

ñThe real driver of success for these farmers will not be changes in agricultural policy but the health of the rest of the economy in the rural areas in which they live. A vibrant rural economy, outside agriculture, will offer the opportunities for diversification upon which their future success lies . . . It is important for many of these farmers that the focus of government policy is switched away from just agriculture and towards a wider range of rural businessesî.

In other words, small farmers are expected to either become, or be replaced by businessmen. This special Chapter 7 News feature on smallholders takes a more searching look at the farmers the Curry Report ignores. We conclude that the nationsÍ smallholders are not going to go away; that the special benefits they bring need to be acknowledged and built on; and the problems they face need to be addressed.

Of Mice and Cormorants

Current policy towards smallholders is in line with the UK tradition of getting rid of peasants But there was one period in recent English history when small farmers were taken seriously.

The Curry reportÍs dismissive approach to half the agricultural workforce would be unthinkable in any other country in Europe; in England it is entirely in accord with the dismissive approach taken by the establishment towards peasants and small farmers over the last five centuries.

The process of enclosure has been well documented and there are many eloquent denunciations of the way in which the English gentry progressively forced peasants off their land, but none more graphic than that of Bishop Latimer who in 1552 complained:

ñSuch boldness have these covetous cormorants that now their robberies, extortion and oppression have no end . . As for turning the poor out of their holdings, they take it for no offence, but say their land is their own and they turn them out of their shrouds like mice. Thousands in England , through such, beg now from door to door, which have kept honest houses.î

The encl osure of the commons, and the anti-peasant ideology which accompanied it , continued for over 400 years in England. There was a good deal resistance from squatters, rioters and self-taught lawyers. But a parliament stacked with landowners ensured that the process continued to the point where farms are now on average over twice as large as anywhere in Western Europe, and the nation has a smaller agricultural work-force, relative to the population, than probably any other country in Europe.

Is there any connection between the concentration of farmland and the current crisis in the English contryside? Why, has UK agriculture acquired a reputation for being the most unhealthy and perverse in Europe? Why, as Kevin Cahill points out, does Ireland, with farms a third of the size of ours, have a booming agricultural economy? These are questions one might reasonably have expected the Curry Commission to examine „ were one not able to guess in advance that they were going to do their very best to ignore the issue.

Defeating the Machine

There was, however, one period in recent Engli sh history, from about 1900 to 1939, when smallholdings were openly espoused as a key solution to many of the problems caused by a serious agricultural recession. Various Smallholdings and Allotment Acts laid the basis for the County Farms estate which still offers an affordable way into farming for new entrants; the Liberal Party introduced tax legislation that helped to break up some of the large aristocratic estates ; and schemes such as the Government sponsored Land Settlement Association placed thousands of families onto holdings of a few acres.

The fact that smallholdings were not necessarily models of economic efficiency was not then seen to be a great problem, partly because there was no other work available and partly because then the ability to live and work on the land was perceived to have a value in itself. Sir John Russell, observed: ñLand settlement and food production are quite distinct problems, and we shall only confuse the issue if we mix them. If more men are to be put on the land it must be for the purpose of giving them occupation, and this can only be done by defeating the machine, either by settling the men on holdings too small to allow of the purchase or use of big implements, or by grouping them in col onies or communities that will forswear the use of machines for the purpose of displacing men.î

Smallholders have to work long hours to make ends meet, but, as Russell notes, they cheerfully accept this, because of their love of farming and their desire for independence. He goes on to compare English smallholders, with their more efficient counterparts in Denmark and New Zealand, who, in a given region produce: ñexactly the same things and of as nearly as possible the same quality, then collect their produce, assembling it at one central place run by experts who grade it, pack it and sell it in large consignments as one brand . . . They have to produce for export, and an export trade must be in large bulks of uniform produce.î

The English smallholder on the other hand ñsticks to his individual production because his local market accepts individual products: he may even be able to hawk them round and sell them retail.î Smallholders, Russell continues, could improve their market effectiveness by combining in co-operatives, but he then goes on to offer another solution: ñA promising alternative is for some interested group of people to organize a market to which smallholders are encouraged to bring their produce. This has been done at East Grinstead, where a collective market, run by Mrs Herbert Musgrave is held once a week. Tables are let to smallholders, cottagers and allotment-holders either as individuals or as groups . . . This market greatly encourages the smallholders because it offers them the prospect of retail prices for all that they can produce . . . Organised collection and transport by motor lorry would still further widen its scope.î Mrs Musgrave, if she were alive today, would no doubt be thrilled to see that her project in East Grinstead is being emulated by the farmersÍ markets popping up all over the country, even if they are arriving 70 years too late.

The resettlement schemes of the 1930s were not wildly successful, but they were by no means all failures „ in the early 1970s the average earnings of the tenants of the Land Settlement Association were well above the average agricultural wage. However the paternalistic structure of many of the settlements „ so at odds with the spirit of independence admired by Russell „ and the fact that these ventures were at the mercy of a fickle international market rather than embedded in the local community, led the majority of these ve ntures to collapse sooner or later. The surviving Land Settlement Schemes were privatized in 1982, and within 10 years many had fallen victim to the supermarketsÍ aggressive buying strategies.

Land Business

How times have changed! In the 1930s there was great enthusiasm for land resettlement and smallholdings, but pace Mrs Musgrave (and leaving aside the boom period for local producers during World War II) this does not seem to have been backed up with any widespread strategy to protect these fledgling producers from the vagaries of the market or to pinpoint alternative markets for them .

Now we have the same lack of ñjoined-up thinkingî in reverse: local foods have become politically correct, there is a sudden proliferation of farmers markets, and local branding and adding value on the farm are seen as a key to survival „ all strategies enthusiastically supported in the Curry Report. Yet they are not backed up with a single land-focussed policy to encourage the formation or ensure the survival of the smaller holdings which are ideally suited to deliver goods at a local scale; instead small farms are expected to diversify into a ñwider range of businessesî.

There is a simple explanation for this contradictary approach: local food policies have been driven from the bottom by demand from environmentally aware consumers for better and fresher food, and by the keeness of some farmers to produce it; the push for diversification comes from the top „ from influential large-scale farmers who would rather move their land and buildings out of farming and into something more lucrative, than cede them at a realistic agricultural price to a new generation of farmers. They are represented by the CLA, which last year changed its name from the Country Landowners Association to the Country Land and Business Association; and by estate agents like Strutt and Parker, whose magazine Land Businessis written by and for modern day cormorants.

Small is Resilient

What future is there for smallholders in this conflicting policy context? One thing is certain: that there will continue to be a strong demand from those who cheerfully choose that way of life. Farming offers one of the few opportunities left for those who prefer manual labour, working outside, or working with animals. As mainstream society becomes more urbanized, plastic and ñvirtualî the number of people seeking an independent hands-on rural way of life is almost certain to increase. For much the same reasons it is also likely that the demand for locally marketed produce will contine to rise. But there are limits to local marketing, and these will depend upon the degree to which the green belt areas around large towns „ traditionally the stronghold of the market gardener „ can be recaptured for food production . The hope value on such property often places it beyond the reach of smallholders.

Indeed access to land may become an increasing problem for smallholders. At present it does not appear to be an overriding constraint; it is agricultural dwellings which are unaffordable for anyone wanting to make a modest living from agriculture. But pony -paddock prices are absurd, and there are signs that the demand for amenity land from wealthy incomers could inflate land prices in some areas to levels that are prohibitive„ particularly if, as Curry recommends, non-farmers get area-based grants for sticking a few pet sheep on it.

But there will always be a substantial body of people whose dream is to acquire a plot of land and make a modest or subsistence living from it „ and it will take a lot to stop the more determined of these. If property prices continue to rise then the only way to make smallholdings viable will be to buy bareland holdings with a view not just to farming them but alsoto living on them. This is what many of the smallholders featured in this issue are doing; and, as many of our readers know from personal experience, it can entail a fight against eviction, lasting five or even 15 years. In some ways things havenÍt changed that much since the time of Bishop Latimer „ although the dynamics of dispossession have become more subtle.

Faced with agricultural policy that takes it for granted that small farms will be diversified out of existence, planning policy that encourages the asset stripping of the agricultural patrimoine and development control policy which threaten those unable to afford a house with eviction from their land, smallholders are in for a bit of a battle. But this is nothing new, as a class they are used to battling. Peasants are societyÍs mice: no matter how often you try to get rid of them they keep coming back.


Smallholders Today: Who Are They? How Many Are There?

No one knows how many smallholders there are in this country, because nobody has bothered to count. In 1872, there were 217, 049 small proprietors with an average sized holding of 18 acres, plus 703, 289 cottagers; but as Kevin Cahill points out nothing even approximating such an analysis could be made today. There is a Devon Association of Smallholders which numbers nearly 2000 members. The Smallholder magazine has sales of around 13,000. NFU Countryside, a branch of the National FarmerÍs Union provides services for rural landowners has a membership of 80,000 members, which it considers will continue to grow as farms are fragmented or "downsized". But many smallholders belong to none of these bodies.

None of these bodies have any discernible political stance, (though NFU CountrysideÍs big sister certainly does) and the main reason is probably that they represent a very divided constituency. There are two rather different kinds of smallholding: which increasingly are becoming typified by those which have a house on their land , and those which donÍt. Twenty acres without a house in the South of England can be had for around £40-60,000. Twenty acres with a house will cost in the region of £250,000-£300,000. You are never going to be able to pay off the mortgage on a property like this by growing cabbages or keeping sheep

That is not to say that there are not many people who have bought or inherited smallholdings with a house who maintain productive and often exemplary farming enterprises. But it is easy to see why there may be a tendency for those who seek to make a living in the poorly paid agricultural sector to gravitate towards the cheaper ñbarelandî holdings, while the houses with land tend to get snapped up by well-to-do people who have a very minimal interest in farming, or none whatsoever.

We have an extraordinary situation in this country where anybody who has made half a million pounds in development, or the music industry or any other urban occupation can buy a few acres with a house and move into it, without having to provide a shred of evidence to anybody as to what they are going to do with the land, or how much money they are going to make from it, or why they need to be there „ while somebody who takes on a few acres of bare land, with a view to living on it and producing vegetables or free range eggs or coppice products, is subjected to unbelievable scrutiny as to the viability of the enterprise they are proposing and their ñfunctionalî need to live on the land, and is quite likely to remain under threat of eviction for years or even decades.

Even more extraordinary, we have had , in the space of 6 years, two rural White Papers and a farming Commission, all purporting to analyse the crisis in the rural economy, and all of totally ignoring this issue, even though what is happening is quite obvious to everyone who lives in the countryside. The drafters of these documents can hardly plead ignorance: Chapter 7 has submitted evidence to all of them , but we might as well have sent our submissions to Father Christmas.

So much for democracy! But , at Chapter 7, we still believe in it and the primary purpose of this issue is to give a voice to some of those who are struggling against this perverse approach to the management of the countryside.


Smallholders Speak Out

The next six pages tell, briefly, the stories of 13 different smallholders. These individuals represent a small fraction of those we have talked to over the last few years, which is a fraction of the number out there. We have selected each story to highlight one particular aspect of the general problem; and recounted them as far as practicable in the speaker’s words.

 

Margaret Young: Hiding in the Barn

Margaret Young grew up in the countryside and as a child developed a passion for goats that she retains to this day. When she met her husband 30 years ago they decided that they wanted to be farmers. They rented land for a while, and started keeping goats and growing vegetables on a part-time basis, but they wanted their own patch of ground. In the the mid 1990s they sold their cottage and bought 36 acres without living accommodation — a house would have been way out of their price range.

The Youngs needed to live on the land to attend to their animals, but they were afraid that they would not be given residential planning permission, because their enterprise was not up and running yet. They didn’t want to take a chance that they might not be allowed to live on the land, so they moved into two small caravans hidden inside a shed while they built up the herd.

Now, four years later, they have 80 dairy goats, 45 ewes, 2 horses, 7 donkeys, and pigs. The goats are hand-milked, and Margaret sells milk, yogurt and cheese for sale locally. She feels that they now have enough goats to show that they have a reason to be there, but she is still worried that they don’t make enough money from them to be considered viable by the planners. The Youngs have moved out of the sheds and are living in a more visible caravan now, but they are glad that they chose to move on to their land before starting their business. “If we had tried to start the business without being here, the planners might have said that that proved we didn’t need to be here at all.”

Margaret finds it strange that she should be viewed as a threat to the countryside because her farm may not be viable. "What the planners don't understand is that this is all we want out of life. We don’t need much money. I work 70 maybe 80 hours a week with my only holiday being a day at the local county show, but that should show that we are happy being where we are and living on our little farm."

Margaret believes that small scale enterprises are the life of the countryside because they are more eco-friendly and the animals are treated with pride and love — and without them the country side would be empty — the houses all full of commuters. "The land would not get looked after properly, all the wildlife and hedgerows would suffer — without us you end up with a countryside that is not very...well, not very nice."

 

Mary Harvey – 14 Years of Insecurity

Mary Harvey lives on an 8 acre smallholding , where she operates a free-range duck and chicken egg business, with a net profit hovering around £10,000-£14,000 per year. She recently won permission to live in a small timber building on the holding, after a 14 year long struggle, costing £25,000 in consultancy fees (paid for by a relative), in which the planners went to great lengths to try to expose her enterprise as a fraud.

Mary moved onto Horton Farm in 1985 after obtaining temporary permission for a caravan. She soon discovered that living in a caravan can be damp and uncomfortable, so she moved into one of the wooden buildings that was on their land Waverley Borough Counc il served her with an enforcement order saying she must remove the building.

Over the years the planning authority went to quite astonishing lengths to prove than she was not serious about her business. Mary has shown us the notes taken by a chief enforcement officer who spied on her movements on 26 occasions over a period of three weeks from a car parked outside her gates. On one occasion he followed her in his car to see where she was going. The object was to show that she spent almost no time on her holding, a conclusion which two Inspectors did not accept.

The planners calculated how many ducks might die in the 20 minutes it would take for her to travel from the village, arguing that the number was “acceptable”.

At appeal, the planning officer calculated how many ducks might die in the 20 minutes it would take for her to travel from the village in the event of an emergency, arguing that the number was “acceptable”. A vet wrote in Mary’s support saying that he was “amazed and apalled “ that the planners should suggest that she should lower her levels of stockmanship, by leaving her ducks unattended.

Towards the end of the saga, when the local authority won an appeal on the grounds that accommodation was available nearby, Mary was queue-jumped up the housing-list, and offered an unfilled council flat in a development designed for elderly people.

Mary got her permission in the end; but her story makes one wonder what it is that makes planners so obsessively opposed to the idea of smallholders living on their land.

 

Sue Place: The Inconvenience of Living Off-Site

The first time that we contacted Sue the shipping s ervice had dumped a polytunnel into her front garden and she was puzzling how to shift it to her land. Delivery companies won’t deliver there because it is not an official address. On another occasion a consignment of strawberry plants died because Sue wasn’t at home when they arrived and the company took them away again.

Sue and her husband Stephen have a herd of Jacob sheep and chickens and run a small organic vegetable scheme supplying people with fruit, vegetables, eggs and meat direct from the farm. They also have other jobs to pay off capital investment, but between them they do about 50 hours per week on the holding. There is plenty of produce and happy customers, but one problem is that the family lives about 10 minutes walk from the land.

Ten minutes doesn’t sound like a lot, but it means that every time Sue wants to check her sheep, or pop the laundry in, or go to weed the carrots, or get something out of the computer, or open the polytunnel doors, or go back home to greet the kids after school, she waste s 20 minutes on a round trip. Sue and Steve are likely to do the round trip two to four times per day, often more. Sue may make special visits to her land at dawn and dusk to pick off the slugs. She remembers that one day during the foot and mouth crisis she had to disinfect 16 times!

When the kids were younger, she often had to stay with them, so her workday on the holding was cut short at 3:00 pm. Now the children spend much of the evening without their parents.

Sue and Stephen want to move onto their land and build a house, but when they spoke to the planners, they were told that it was becoming increasingly difficult to do this. If they do apply, the planners may well quote PPG7 at them: “Normally it will be as convenient for [agricultural and forestry] workers to live in nearby towns or villages.”

Sue who grew up on a smallholding in the days when farming was integrated with family life, doesn’t agree:

”Lots of people who visit our farm say ‘You should apply for permission to live here.’ Everybody can see what sense it would make. . . . Planning has to catch up with what’s going on. Everyone agrees we need more fresh and local food; If they value small farms, the planners should support us.”

 

John Gill: Widower Goes Back to the Land

Chapter 7 has heard from several older people who were born and bred in the countryside and wish to retire to a simple life working for themselves. Here are some excerpts from letters we received from John Gill.

“Your letter has really got me thinking and given me something to occupy my mind since losing my wife. I am now saving like mad and hope to be able to afford to buy a smal l plot and get back into the countryside again as I worked on a farm as a herdsman in the late 50’s. My day dreams send me back to the head herdsman’s house where I used to be sent to sleep listening to the rush of water going past the house that was was an old water mill where I lodged with the head herdsman and his wife (I suppose some rich person owns it now) I am now 59 years old and my wife of 32 years has died. My house is paid for and my children are grown up and scattered all over the country. So, I haven’t got anything to hold me back.

“To be honest I really want to have a load of animals so my grandkids will come and visit me. I remember my old granddad having his plot full of animal and we used to have such a time when we would go to visit him. The land is where I learned everything I know.

“M house is only worth £45,000 so a country house is way out of my price range, but I could get a coppice wood. Once I have got the plot, I will get in touch with Mr. Lloyd of Cumbria to learn about the trade of charcoal burning. I know now I’m not the only person with ancient back to basics beliefs. Mr. Lloyd sounds like my sort of person. Most people think I’m a daft dreamer.

“I don’t want to give my house up yet, though. What I’ll do is run the business from here, put a caravan on, stay there now and again, get the business up and running, take early retirement from my boring job of Council Car Park Attendant; put some livestock on like chickens, pigs (to clear the ground) and maybe a pony to pull the fallen trees out. Then tell the authorities I need to be there for the animals, and charcoal burning.

“When you say you believe that the poorer people in our society should get a chance to live and work in the country, it is as if you have read my thoughts as that is exactly what I think and I’ve always wondered why others don’t hanker for a small plot that they can keep a few animals on instead of spending thousands on household toys and big cars”

John hasn’t found any land yet for sale close enough to his wife’s grave, but he’s still looking .

 

Jim Aplin : Travellers Turn to Farming

At Warren Fruit Farm, in Gloucestershire, 60 acres of abandoned, but still productive orchards have been divided into 14 smallholdings and rented out — mainly to travellers who have settled and started small land-based enterprises, including fruit and veg, fruit juice, and poultry. But ,the eight or so travelling families who have moved onto the land have traded one set of hassles for another. Tewkesbury Borough Council are not only threatening enforcement action but even tried to ban them from selling goods at the farmers market.

For Jim Aplin and his partner Hayley Morland, who lived for years on the road doing seaso nal picking or planting, this was a rare opportunity to gain a bit of land at an affordable price. Hayley was pregnant and parking up got to be more and more difficult. So they decided to rent one of the plots.

Now Jim, and Hayley run a box scheme from one acre of their 3.7 acres. At present they produce 30 boxes, plus extra veg for the farmers markets, as well as plums, pears and free range eggs. They plan to double production next year. Box schemes have proved to be a a great way for them to be able to "carry on for ourselves, making our own decisions". Their scheme has proved successful, but not enough for the Tewkesbury planning department. After sitting on his application for a temporary caravan for over 9 months, they employed Reading Agricultural Consultants to pull his project to pieces, and then turned it down.

Jim is going to appeal, and despite years of being moved on by the authorities, remains hopeful:

& #8220;If you are sat on your arse doing nothing, then you're making the case for the people you want off the land. But if you're working hard for what you believe in,and letting people know the good you're doing for sustainability, the environment and the local economy, then you're building your own case, and you've got a fighting chance."

 

Tinkers Bubble: Community Smallholding

Tinkers Bubble is a community of 11 adults and 4 children who together manage an agricultural and forestry smallholding of forty acres. The original group of people who bought the land chipped in together because none could afford to buy their own little plot. Tinkers Bubble cost £1,300 per acre in 1994, while £5,000 per acre was the going price for pony-paddocks. Collective ownership also gave the community the opportunity to work cooperatively. The members of Tinkers Bubble now manage a wide variety of micro-enterprises including orchards, timber, vegetables, cheese, meat and g reen woodwork.

Tinker’s Bubble now has five-year temporary permission for a low impact settlement in association with agricultural and forestry business. But it took them five years to get it, during which time they went through three applications, enforcement notice, a failed Article 4 direction and stop notice, a public inquiry, High Court, Court of Appeal and refusal for the matter to be considered by the House of Lords. The legal costs of this process were over £20,000.

After all that, the local planning committee gave them permission, against the recommendation of the planning officers, because it was becoming apparent that the project was, potentially at least, a good one. Even some of the planning department ,who recommended against it, have signalled, that they were in favour of the project, but were constrained by national policy. As one of the original Bubblers commented “We knew from the start that we would never in a century get permission if we applied beforehand. The only way to get planning consent w as to move on without permission and show that the project worked.”

Why couldn’t Tinkers Bubble fit into national policy? Well firstly, while it might be possible to argue a functional need to live on the land for one or two people, there is no way that you can argue it for a whole tribe: communities are ruled out from the start by the guidance on functional need in PPG7.

Secondly, none of the agricultural and forestry businesses at Tinker’s Bubble are large enough to be considered viable by the standards usually applied. Most provide enough for subsistence and a minimal income averaging around £1,500 per year. This is adequate: each adult resident of Tinker’s Bubble pays no more than £20 cash per week for their food, shelter, water, heating, lighting, agricultural infrastructure, tools and insurance. But try explaining this to agricultural consultants like ADAS, who gave evidence against Tinker’s Bubble, or Reading Agricultural Consultants. Such firms claim that “the generally accepted standard is that enterprises should be able to provide a return at least equivalent to the minimum agricultural wage (£10-£11000) for each labour unit on the holding, as well as a small return on capital investment” — but there is no statutory basis for this figure.

“Policy allows little latitude for the new smallholder who wants to be self-sufficient and live and work in the countryside. We all claim to want a living, working countryside. Well, councillors will need to take some brave decisions to ensure that we achieve that .” Baroness Miller

Fortunately the majority of councillors on the planning committee had more vision than the “experts”. Sue Miller (now Baroness Miller), the leader of South Somerset district council at the time commented:

“Policy allows little latitude for the new smallholder who wants to be self-sufficient and live and work in the countryside. We all claim to want a living, working countryside. Well, councillors will need to take some brave decisions to ensure that we achieve that . . . Red tape and outdated policy have failed to strangle South Somerset and we are proud of that.”

 

Liz Bond: Fined for Living Where She Was Brought Up

Liz Bond and her partner Tony have lived for seven years in a mobile home on four acres in a the West Country , where they keep chickens, horses and other animals. At present they are both occupied looking after their youngest son who is seriously ill. Liz, who is 40, was brought up in the house next door and inherited the land from her father, who had sold the house.

“The guy next door runs a scrap business; yet the planners say that it is we who are spoiling the countryside by living in the place where I was brought up.”

For several years the couple have been living under threat of an enforcement notice, and two years ago they were taken to court and fined £250. Since then they have been left alone, although the planners have come to make inspections. Says Liz: “The insecurity and the worry about whether we are going to be thrown out of our home is very draining. The guy next door runs a scrap business, burning plastic and disposing of asbestos; yet the planners say that it is we who are spoiling the countryside by living and sleeping in the place where I was brought up.”

 

Charlie Cox: Affordable Home on an Acre

Charlie and his family live in Essex. They are ordinary people who work hard, don’t go for anything too posh, and in their words “haven’t a chance in hell of buying our own home”. For the past 20 years they have managed an acre (plus a bit next door that they have claimed through adverse possession), keeping themselves supplied in food with a vegetable plot, chickens, pigs and goats —“it’s surprising what you can get out of a little piece of ground”. On their little plot of land they have lived in a caravan part-time for the past five years, shuffling back and forth between their home and the plot. Charlie has finally gotten the caravan up to standard so that his 14 and 16 year old girls can “keep themselves in the manner that they are accustomed to”. Now, they are thinking of moving into their caravan full-time.

They aren’t sure what sort of reaction they will get, but they feel confident. As Charlie put it, “ the caravan has been on that bit of land for so long that the planners know someone will be able to live there. I get an offer from a gypsy every week for it, so they know what it ’s worth. “ Charlie (in a variation of a strategy known by development consultants as the “fall-back” approach) says that he will sell the land to Gypsies if he can’t get permission to live in the caravan, (in planning policy there are exceptions made for gypsies, which aren’t available for non-gypsies ). “Not that I’ve got anything against Gypsies: we’re just like them.”

The district council have recently revealed plans to build affordable housing in open countryside near Charlie’s plot. One might have thought that the council could allow caravans as affordable housing in the countryside — at least when they are linked to a land- based way of keeping costs down for an average family.

 

Chris Dixon: Temporary Permission Brings No Security

Getting temporary permission does not guarantee you a secure home, as permaculturalists Chris and Lynn Dixon have found out. They bought Tir Penrhos Isaf, a seven acre holding in Coed Y Brenin in the Snowdonia National Park, in 1986, when it was an over-grazed, close cropped sward with little variety under scattered mature trees. Wet areas were damaged by poaching, dry areas succumbed to drought.

For five years the Dixons lived four and a half miles from the land , but after lengthy negotiations with the National Park they acquired permission to live on their land in a caravan in 1991. Since moving on they have been able to devote more time to increasing the diversity and productivity of the holding and now have a deer-proofed, perennial forest garden which shelters raised annual beds designed to become more productive and easier to garden each year. The Park’s ecologists have been impressed by the Dixon’s permaculture experiments and this was helpful in getting renewals of permission in the 1990s.

However recently there has been a new flush of councillors, from livestock backgrounds, who are disdainful of the “chaotic” nature of the holding. On a site visit, the councillors couldn’t identify productive plants in complex, mixed systems or indeed many native species (well, it was January) — and their attitude was was characterised by one of the councillors who stated "what this place needs is a bit more order".

The Dixon’s 2001 application for a permanent low-impact dwelling was refused, and turned down at appeal, partly on the extraordinary grounds that their income was so low that they could not afford to build a house. Even worse, in 2002 their application for renewal of temporary permission was refused, so now, after living on their land for 11 years, the Dixons, with their young son, find themselves threatened with eviction.

 

Keith Burdett: The Costs of Commuting

Keith Burdett, Amanda Young and their two children live on a small woodland holding in Wales, where they manage and process a timber crop, grow herbs, and keep chickens. Their turnover is over £10,000, but their net income at present is much less than the minimum agricultural wage. This would normally be viewed as inadequate to justify a dwelling; but their needs are low— as long as they can continue to live on site.

In order to support their application Chapter 7 asked the family to draw up a rough estimate of the extra costs involved if they had to move to a house elsewhere, whilst continuing to farm their holding. We thought at first the figures provided were somewhat exaggerated, but the Burdetts were adamant that affordable housing was impossible to find (they had tried) and that the figures given are accurate.

Three scenarios are imagined: a house at the nearest town 12 miles away; a house in a 6 miles away; and a house in the up-market local vil lage, one mile away. At present, living on site, the family only runs one vehicle, a land-rover.

As can be seen, below, the total costs of living away from the holding are nearly the same as a minimum agricultural wage, which is also the approximate level of the average net farm income across the UK for 1999-2000 (£8,700) and 2000-2001 (£9,900).

 

Mike Fisher : It Can