Publications 27html

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

Chapter 7 The Planning Office of The Land Is Ours

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

Our Report on PPG7

Chapter 7Õs New Year Competitions

The Art Competition

The Literary Competition

Gypsy Site Trashed By Council

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

When Enforcement Means Eviction

¥ ÒThe 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.Ó

¥ ÒRetrospective applications continue to have a role to play in legitimising unauthorized developmentsÓ; and Òhigher fees for retrospective planning applications would be counterproductive . . . We would, however be grateful for further views on thisÓ

Lessons from the Death of Mrs C . . .

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.

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

Coping With Stress

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 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;

. . . 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 DrydenÕs home to destroy it. Dryden had threatened to shoot Collinson dead, and that is what he did. He was convicted of murder and imprisoned.

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.

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

Tony WrenchÕs Roundhouse: The Park Responds

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

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:

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 Òtricks.Ó The points made by Tony Wrench in his article are summarised in italics

TW: Telling the committee that Òno case had or could be madeÓ for the functional test, despite a Pembs County Council report saying that Òin terms of the functional requirements of the communityÓ there was a need.

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 Òhigher authorityÓ Ñ two independent Appeal inspectors Ñ 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.

Prescott Takes Over the Green Paper

John Prescott Ôs 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 Ñ 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 ÒoddpumÓ).

What is Spatial Planning?

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

Main Points from PrescottÕs June 18 Statement

¥ 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 ÒupdatedÓ. 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.

¥ 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

ÒGirls gripping their handbags tighter, stared at a religious wounding . . . Ó

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

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

ÒWe Farm the Land, They Get the BiblesÓ

Chapter 7
The Planning Office of The Land Is Ours