NORTH NORFOLK RURAL
ECONOMY STUDY
Prepared By
Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd
Old Market Office
10 Risbygate Street
Bury St Edmunds
Suffolk
IP33 3AA
Authors
Miss Jemma Stennett (BSc) Hons MRICS
Mr Brian Barrow BSc (Hons) MRICS
Mr M How BSc (Hons)
Mr G Streeter BSc (MRICS)
Contributions from ADAS
SEPTEMBER 2005
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 1 of 174
FORWARD
This study was produced in response to a specification provided by North Norfolk
District Council. The aim of this project is to assist North Norfolk District Council in
the formulation of core strategy and site specific policies for the North Norfolk Local
Development Framework (LDF). The project outputs will ensure these policies are
based on a sound understanding of both current and likely future requirements of
agriculture and the wider rural economy.
The authors would like to specifically thank Steve Blatch from North Norfolk District
Council but especially all farmers, landowners and other rural based businesses that
contributed to surveys and discussion groups which were an essential part of the
background investigations to this project.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 2 of 174
CONTENTS
FORWARD
SECTION
1.
Executive Summary
2
The Current Agricultural Climate - National and North
Norfolk
3
The Planning Issues – Methodology
4
Historic Guidance
5
-
The North Norfolk Local Plan 1998
-
National Planning Policies and Other Influences
What has been Achieved and What Lessons have been
Learnt
-
The Positives and Negatives
6
Other Local Authority approaches to Rural Policy –
Beacon Status
7
Current Guidance and Advice
8
-
National Planning Policies – PPS7
-
Other Guidance/Influences to Future Policy
The potential implications of land use planning policies on
agricultural trends
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 3 of 174
9
Recommendation for North Norfolk’s Future Policy
Direction
10
Appendices
11
Bibliography
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 4 of 174
SECTION 1
Executive Summary
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 5 of 174
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
North Norfolk Farming Systems
North Norfolk is a region dominated by cereal, general cropping, pig and
poultry production. The countryside character represents a region that is
remote, sparsely populated and dependent upon agriculture and tourism for its
main sources of income. The region has a wide diversity of habitats, with
several areas designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There is a conflict between tourism
and countryside conservation. The region has good soils which are suited to
cereal and general cropping, although the more peaty soils are prone to erosion.
The amount of land within agricultural production has decreased over the past
decade, with land taken out of production for diversification, development and
conservation.
The largest group of holdings are under five hectares (12 acres) in size, with the
second largest group being represented by holdings over 100 hectares (247
acres) in size. The greatest changes have been seen in the numbers of farms
classed as ‘pigs and poultry’ (increase) and ‘general cropping’ (decrease).
The amount of land rented has decreased and there has been a corresponding
increase in the amount of land classed as “owned”. With the introduction of
the Arable Area Payments (AAPS) the area of cereals grown has fallen with a
corresponding increase in land down to set aside.
Sugar beet production has decreased in the North Norfolk region, with potato
production showing an increase.
Only 0.9% of agricultural land within the East of England Region is within
organic production. The East of England Regions is below average in terms of
number of organic growers, and the region represents 15% of the total number
of organic processors in England. There is potential to increase the number of
organic producers and growers within the East of England Region, although the
exact number of organic producers and growers within North Norfolk are not
known.
The ADAS Farmer’s Voice survey undertaken in 2004 found that organic
growers are more content with their farming system than non organic growers,
and are more likely to have diversified than non organic growers.
Total income from farming in the UK fell in 2004 by 5.4%, with income from
farming now on a level to that of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.
Cereal and general cropping farms are predicted to have a lower income in
2005 than in 2003/04. Pig farming is predicted to show a decline in income,
and poultry farms are expected to show an increase, due to higher egg prices.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 6 of 174
In the region of North Norfolk, agriculture represents 20% of the total Gross
Domestic Product (GDP).
It is predicted that smaller farms in the region will see a greater period of
change over the next two years compared to larger farms in the region.
1.2
Trends in agricultural employment since 1990
Agricultural employment numbers in North Norfolk has dropped 53% since
1990, this is a reflection of the overall trend for the United Kingdom. This
decline is seen in full and part time, male and female employees.
In North Norfolk, agriculture represents 8.3% of total employment, this is
similar to figures shown in other remote rural areas.
There is a
disproportionate number of male and female employees within agriculture,
with male employees dominating the industry. North Norfolk has a high
incidence of seasonal employment.
49 percent of people employed within agriculture are 45 years old or above.
This is probably due to the out-migration of younger people and could lead to a
worsening of the problem of recruiting into farming.
North Norfolk shows a great concentration of low earners within the agriculture
sector. It is forecasted that due to changing policies and income within
agriculture, farm managers will have to adapt to change.
1.3
Drivers of change within Agriculture
The most significant legislation to affect agriculture within England, The East
of England and North Norfolk are viewed as:
CAP reform
Sugar Beet Reform
IPPC regulations
AONB and SSSI designations (North Norfolk)
Water Framework Directive
New Agricultural waste regulations
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Of these the recently introduce Single Payment Scheme (CAP Reform) and the
imminent Sugar Beet Reforms will have the biggest influence on shaping the
future farm businesses within North Norfolk. The Single Payment Scheme will
give the farmers the ability to adapt to market forces without influencing
subsidy payments. The absolute level of subsidies will fall over the coming
years regardless of farmer fortunes.
The new sugar beet regime will force the sugar industry to rationalise with a
resultant contraction in the amount of beet grown in the area. This will affect
the farms in North Norfolk more than other areas of the country where sugar
beet has not historically been grown.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 7 of 174
1.4
Diversification and business opportunities
Farm diversification has been undertaken since the 1980’s as a response to the
CAP reform. The assessment of diversification and business opportunities
within the whole rural economy shows that there is a varied choice of
diversification options, all of which depend upon many variables. The main
opportunities available include tourism, recreation, animal and crop products,
organic production, woodland products, use of redundant buildings, wetland
and wildlife.
The choice of diversification ultimately depends upon the farmer/landowner’s
preferences and the following variables:
Land
Location
Capital available / underlying business security
Current and proposed income stream
Human resources
Buildings/Cottages/farmhouses
Competition
Current markets
The diversification options available to farmers in North Norfolk are likely to
be aimed towards tourism, on-farm, accommodation and exploiting the equine
industry. Alternative crops may also be a future possibility.
Successful diversification will also depend upon the availability of government
grants, under schemes such as the Rural Enterprise Scheme, which is
administered by the Rural Development Services of DEFRA.
Compared to other regions in England, farms in the East of England region are
above average in terms of having a diversified activity and off farm
employment. As a result of this they are below average in terms of the farm
being the main source of income for the holding.
Farms in the East of England have the average number of let buildings
compared to other regions. They are above average in terms of diversifying
into processing and retailing and are considerably above average in terms of
diversifying into tourism.
The main farm business accounted for some 65% of farm income over the last
year among non-organic producers compared to 55% among organic producers.
For the latter, diversification activities accounted for almost 15% of farm
family income and off-farm income for almost 30%.
The farm diversification options available to different farms in North Norfolk
will be influenced by variables such as location, costs, return on capital
invested, employment costs and labour requirements.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 8 of 174
Opportunities for farm diversification in the region of North Norfolk exist in
the following areas:
Tourist accommodation
Activity holidays
Package holidays
Outdoor pursuits
Equine Industry
The tourism season needs to be extended in order to create more permanent
employment, higher levels of pay and improved employment conditions.
The quality of the landscape in North Norfolk draws tourists to the area but
also brings with it responsibilities in terms of managing the visitors and
preserving the area’s special qualities for future generations.
There are opportunities within North Norfolk to improve upon bridleways and
tourism/accommodation based upon the equine industry.
1.5
Organic, alternative crops and Grower Groups
Organic production, alternative crops and bio fuels are likely to increase within
the United Kingdom although growth within the organic sector has slowed
down within recent years.
51% of organic producers taking part in the ADAS Farmer’s Voice survey said
they are likely to develop alliances with other farmers, compared to 40% of
non-organic producers.
47% of organic producers indicated some likelihood to market directly to
consumers, compared to 19% among non-organic producers. This indicates
that organic producers are ahead of the game with regards to ‘direct retailing’
and a difference in attitudes to marketing between organic and non-organic
producers.
Bio fuels offer a number of benefits towards the environment and opportunities
for farm businesses. Hundreds of new jobs could be created through producing
bio fuels on England’s farms.
With the need for agriculture to become more competitive and to survive with
world commodity prices the businesses must become more cost efficient and
also improve their marketing. Farmer Controlled Businesses of many different
types and guises will enable the industry to restructure and face the future with
confidence.
From the analysis of the rural economy a number of key trends and their
implications have been identified:
As with many other sectors the trends suggest that there will be continued
rationalisation resulting in fewer but larger holdings.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 9 of 174
The area of grassland is increasing yet the number of grazing livestock is
falling. The rise in grassland area is predominantly due to marginal land being
taken out of conventional cropping as the economics of growing crops has
come under pressure.
Whilst there has been a dramatic fall in breeding pig numbers in North Norfolk,
the total number of pigs within the region has dropped by 7% in the last 15
years highlighting the change within the region from breeding pig herds to
finishing pigs.
With little improvement in the economics of milk production it is likely that the
already small number of dairy producers within North Norfolk will continue to
dwindle.
The increasing age of the average farmer coupled with the continued outmigration of the younger workforce has significant long term implications for
the agricultural industry.
The imminent changes within the sugar beet regime are likely to have a
momentous effect on future cropping options within North Norfolk, again
having a nock on affect on employment in the area.
The new Single Payment Scheme will also have a huge effect on future farming
enterprises. The main implications for production are reductions in cereals,
beef and sheep. There will be increased pressure to cut variable and fixed costs
with a resultant cut in employed on-farm labour as well as more farmers
becoming part-time.
Cereals will only be grown where it is efficient to do so. There will also be an
increase in the use of alternative farming arrangements. Switch from break
crops to cereals and removal of more land from arable cropping to permanent
or temporary fallow.
Further uptake of environmental schemes and woodland, also some additional
land will be taken out of agricultural production and managed to the minimum
requirements of Cross Compliance.
More farmers are expected to introduce or expand existing diversification
enterprises to ‘supplement’ their farm incomes and make up profit shortfalls.
The primary choice of diversification is the alternative use for redundant farm
buildings or replacement of unsuitable buildings with purpose built units.
Horse tourism may be an avenue that could be expanded further, this could
have the added bonus of utilising some of the additional grassland.
The rise in potential for crops to be used for biofuels will also generate
alternative uses for the land and give the agricultural businesses additional
markets that are not reliant on commodity market prices.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 10 of 174
For a few businesses there will be opportunities to develop niche markets for
their produce. The emphasis will be to add value with some form of on farm
processing and orientate the business nearer to the customer. This may be
achieved by direct retailing for example Farm Shops or Farmers Markets.
To help drive the challenge of reducing input and fixed costs more
collaboration and joint ventures will be considered. The rise in Farmer
Controlled Businesses may lead to further reduction in production orientated
labour but may have a positive effect on those employed in adding value to
primary agricultural produce. However the increase in business rationalisation
will undoubtedly result in an increase in redundant farm buildings as farming
operations become more centralised and fewer in number.
2
The project brief identified a number of key rural issues to be addressed; these
have been divided into 8 key areas as follows.
1. Agricultural Buildings
2. Agricultural dwellings and occupancy conditions
3. Conversion of rural buildings
4. Low cost housing
5. Land Use including the AONB and Agricultural Land Quality
6. Farm Diversification (Including Farm Shops and Other On-Farm Non
Agricultural Development)
7. Replacement buildings
8. Recreation and Tourism
These areas are not mutually exclusive and there are clearly relationships
between them but they encompass the key issues in terms of rural policy
formulation.
3
An understanding the historical policy framework and existing Local Plan is
essential to any study of its effects. The current North Norfolk Local Plan has
a number of policies specifically related to the Rural Economy. The following
are considered relevant:
Policy 22
Agricultural Land
Policy 23
Prior Approval of Agricultural and Forestry Buildings
Policy 29
The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the Countryside
Policy 66
Agricultural and Forestry Workers’ Dwellings in the
Countryside
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 11 of 174
Policy 67
Removal of Agricultural Occupancy Conditions
Policy 76
Farm Diversification
Policy 88
Farm Shops
Policy 117
Horses
The other key influences on how current development has occurred are
government policies and other guidance. PPG7 is considered the most relevant
for the rural sector. PPG7 – The Countryside – Environmental Quality and
Economic and Social Development replaced the former 1992 version. In
March 2001 Paragraph 2.8 and 2.9 of PPG7 were amended to include more
guidance on how local planning authorities should take account of any
statutory designations
In 1992 “The Good Practice Guide on Rural Diversification” was produced and
has been a key influence on development plan policies from that time.
Part of North Norfolk was designated as an objective 5b area and this also had
a key influence in terms of positive advice and grant aid.
The advice within the existing North Norfolk Local Plan and National Policies
clearly has had an impact on the type of development that has been both
encouraged and discouraged and ultimately permitted through the application
process.
Understanding what has worked and what has not is important before deciding
on changes that can be made in the light of new guidance, this is outlined in
Section 7.
4
The existing policy framework was assessed to analyse practical
implementation, consider relevant issues such as infrastructure, market demand
and the effect on the rural economy. Research was undertaken through the
following methods:i)
Farmer Focus Groups
ii)
ADAS North Norfolk Farmer surveys.
iii)
Agricultural Business Survey
iv)
Analysis of rural planning applications submitted to North
Norfolk District Council during the life of the existing local
plan.
The first three of these methods are based on ‘grass roots’ perceptions and
opinions and should be considered as such.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 12 of 174
4.1
Focus Groups
A series of four farmer focus groups were held with attendance of between 10
and 20 farmers at each. The eight key issues listed in Section 2 were
considered in terms of existing local plan policy, national planning polices,
problems with policy relating to actual proposals and potential solutions.
The results of the focus groups are included at Appendix 2 of this report. The
following are some of the perceptions and opinions identified (note not all
attendees necessarily shared all these views). They have been reported in the
form expressed by farmers during this consultation process.
•
Agricultural Occupancy Conditions – no local workers available.
•
Seasonal workers were a key resource but the provision of permanent
accommodation was considered to be a problem.
•
Relocation of intensive agricultural sites currently in/or adjacent to
villages, should be considered.
•
Holiday accommodation too expensive in terms of capital investment
with low returns. The fact that grants were ending was also an issue.
•
Retail in rural areas had potential, in terms of re-use of buildings.
•
Highways conditions on access were often too onerous and too
expensive.
•
Diversification is essential and should be based on a sound financial
plan.
•
Diversification of the wider rural economy was needed not just on
working farms.
•
There are likely to be more redundant buildings due to CAP reforms
and sugar beet regime.
•
There is a shortage of rural housing.
•
There is an over supply of holiday lets.
•
Restrictive policies on farm shops are preventing development.
•
The policies on diversification are seen as too restrictive.
•
Business growth is seen to be more restricted in AONB and other
landscape areas.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 13 of 174
4.2
•
Policies on agricultural buildings and development only consider
permitted development and give no guidance on planning applications.
•
Agricultural development in AONB/ Areas of High Landscape
Value/County Wildlife sites is restricted to the detriment of businesses
due to these large designations rather than each site considered on
landscape issues.
•
North Norfolk District Council is not positive towards agriculture and
seems to be contrary to other government and DEFRA guidance.
•
Replacement farmsteads/new farmsteads not considered.
•
Highways always a problem.
Farmer Survey
In order to gather as much first hand information and to give the farmers an
opportunity to participate in the process a postal survey of agricultural holdings
was carried out. The questionnaire gathered details about the farm business
and cropping, diversification enterprises, attitude to farming and the CAP
reform as well as various issues regarding housing, redundant buildings and
planning. The questionnaire and a covering letter were sent out in early June
2005 to 500 of the 1,000 holdings in North Norfolk. A total of 81 completed
questionnaires were returned and analysed.
Below is a summary of the main findings:
Farm Details 86% of the land is owned and farmed by the owner and 51% of farmers also
had additional land that was farmed under an agricultural tenancy. Within the
last 5 years 25% had increased their acreage (mainly those growing field
vegetables) and 6% had decreased their acreage (mainly within the dairy, pigs
and poultry sectors).
70% of respondents said that their areas farmed would not change within the
next 5 years.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 14 of 174
Percentage of holdings with livestock/arable or horticultural enterprises
12
Other cash crops
25
Field vegetables
Combinable crops
90
88
Root crops
Intensive poultry
5
Intensive pigs
4
Outdoor pigs & poultry
9
Dairy
4
Beef & sheep
33
Forage maize
5
Grassland
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Diversification - Percentage of the different enterprises among those
respondents who have diversified
Off-farm non-agricultural business
Leasing of land
Leasing of buildings
Farm-based craft business
Other farm-based leisure business
(eg sports, open farms)
Equine (eg livery, grazing, riding
trail)
Future
Current
Discontinued
Farm-based accommodation (eg
B&B, self catering)
Farm-based food retailing
Farm-based food processing
Agricultural services
Non-food crops
Novel livestock (eg ostriches,
rabbits)
Novel food crops
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
The most common reason stated as the barrier to diversification was difficulty
obtaining planning permission. This is not an uncommon result for this type of
survey.
28% of respondents indicated that “farming has a limited future – I need to
diversify”, and 33% indicated that “I see my future in farming but I expect that
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 15 of 174
I will have to change my farming practice”. Only 1% indicated that they would
give up farming altogether.
The most likely way in which businesses would change in the future was to
develop alliances with other farmers (65%) and also to forward sell their
produce (65%). The most unlikely changes in the future would be to develop
alliances with service providers or market directly to customers.
40% of respondents indicated that they foresee no significant changes to their
main farm enterprises due to CAP reform.
Of those that do foresee changes the most likely changes would be:
•
•
•
•
•
Cease and decrease combinable crop acreage
Cease and decrease sugar beet acreage
Increase field vegetable area
Claim SP without cropping
Due to the low number of livestock respondents it is difficult to draw
out any conclusive trends with statistical significance except an increase
in free range poultry.
The trend towards decreasing numbers employed in agriculture would
continue. 43% of respondents had one or more dwellings with an agricultural
occupancy condition and 60% would consider letting these dwellings for local
housing as a form of diversification.
Redundant Buildings –
73% of respondents indicated that they had redundant buildings; there was no
correlation with farm type. 33% indicated that there would be further
redundant buildings in the future.
In descending order the most likely uses to which buildings would be concerted
was; Residential, Holiday, Industrial, Offices, Leisure, Retail and On Farm
Processing. 54% of respondents would let out their buildings once converted.
4.3
Agricultural Business Surveys
To gather information to inform an analysis of trends within the agriculturally
related sectors, perceived demand for services and future requirements, a cross
section of businesses that are directly involved with offering services to farmers
were interviewed. 30 interviews were conducted following a predetermined
format that gathered information about their core business, areas of operations,
and perceived changes in the agricultural sector and how this would impact on
their businesses and how they would react. Also views on planning issues to
do with their business and those of their customers were obtained.
The main points to be drawn from the interviews are:
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 16 of 174
•
There is great inertia within agriculture, farmers will take the next 3 years
to adapt to the SPS.
•
The changes will focus the grower into cost of production and marginal
land will come out of production.
•
Farmers will look to co-operate more with one another.
•
Biofuels could be a saviour to the sugar beet industry; if not there may not
be any sugar beet within the UK within 15 years.
•
Whilst the banks recognise the need for more ‘financing’ within the sector
and are happy to provide it, they are making it their duty to inform their
clients about the long term sustainability of their businesses, and the urgent
need to resolve problems.
•
Professional marketing of produce will become more important.
•
Farmers markets are expanding and there is scope for more within the area
if satisfactory sites are forthcoming.
•
The supply industry will have to fight for a share of a smaller market.
•
The contraction of farming activities will seriously impact on the supply
industries and there is great concern.
•
Slow down in erection of new buildings within medium sized businesses.
•
Highways are perceived as a thorn in the side of many failed planning
applications.
•
The road structure is limiting future prospects.
•
Current planning policies are too rigid and not flexible enough.
•
There is a “stone wall, no can do” attitude from planners.
•
Current planning policy is too narrow.
•
Should not impose ‘city policies’ in rural areas.
•
There is a need for more local housing.
•
More site meetings would be useful.
•
As farming ‘rationalises’ more redundant farm buildings will be created,
both traditional and the more modern steel frame type. What can be done
with them?
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 17 of 174
4.4
Analysis of Planning Application
A total of 30 case studies were selected at random by N.N.D.C. The sample
analysed provided a background to the type of application and the development
proposed. The major issues and the relevant planning policies were extracted
to enable trends to be observed and the following became apparent.
4.4.1
Conversion of rural buildings was the most popular type of application
with a diverse range of uses.
The survey showed that diversification including re-use of rural
buildings, to tourism was extremely popular and the majority included
some form of self-catering holiday accommodation. The main issues
relevant to these applications were, Highways, Landscape and AONB
impact and the effect on wildlife.
4.4.2 Agricultural and other occupational dwellings were also popular, with
all cases analysed being approved but at Committee level. Objections
and concerns centred on size, location and landscape impact.
The applications analysed had the model agricultural occupancy
condition attached in most cases, but some were specific to the other
rural business operated which was not agricultural. The majority of the
applications required some form of landscaping or tree survey as
standard, particularly in AONB.
4.4.3
Agricultural Buildings were also a popular form of development. In
these cases the majority of decisions were delegated Landscaping
requirements and the presence of AONB status were some of the key
issues. In particular siting was deemed to be more important in the
AONB and use of natural features to reduce impact of the proposed
building was noted.
4.4.4
The survey showed that approximately 90% of applications gained
planning approval with a high proportion having implemented or
intending to implement their development in due course. The two most
quoted reasons for influencing the decision to submit a planning
application were to maximise capital value of the asset and a change in
enterprise.
The survey responses clearly show that economic reasons have major
influences on farmers decisions to submit applications. The rural
enterprises and customer requirements are all influences which are
driven by market and economy conditions.
4.5
Analysis of Local Plan Policies
Based on the evidence gathered and views of those surveyed and/or attending
the focus groups, the following conclusions were reached on the current
policies.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 18 of 174
4.5.1
Agricultural Buildings and Development
North Norfolk District Policy 23 does cover prior approval, offers
practical guidance and aims to protect the AONB.
Areas for modification/improvement
4.5.2
•
No specific policy on full planning applications for agricultural
buildings.
•
No specific policy on important and varied roles of agriculture in
managing the countryside and valued landscapes.
•
Does not take account of the requirement for farmers to become
more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
•
Allowing farmers to adapt to new and changing markets (e.g. free
range egg/table bird production).
•
Comply with changing legislation (IPPC).
•
Diversifying into new agricultural opportunities (e.g. renewable
crops).
•
Broaden their operations to ‘add value’ to their primary produce
(e.g. diversification/development of successful farm shops).
•
Farms within the AONB, county wildlife sites and areas of high
landscape value perceive that their businesses are constrained by
Policy 23. They also believe the beauty of these areas is dependent
on their continued farming and management of the countryside.
•
In terms of highways there is no positive policy in rural areas, this
constrains the rural economy.
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions
North Norfolk District Council Policy 66. This policy has a number of
positive aspects, including the requirement for a functional test, there
are specific criteria regarding siting design and landscaping, and there is
a requirement for alternative accommodation or redundant buildings to
be considered.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
The policy is specific to agricultural or forestry workers – other
occupational dwellings e.g. equestrian are not detailed as now
covered in PPS 7.
Page 19 of 174
•
Consideration of financial sustainability is only required if the
functional test proves inconclusive. Financial sustainability should
always be considered for a permanent dwelling.
•
Imposing conditions on other houses on the farm can prove to be
impractical e.g. large listed houses.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 67 (Removal of Agricultural
Occupancy Conditions). This policy does include guidance for
potential applicants.
Areas for modification/improvement
4.5.3
•
Criteria ambiguous – the words ‘reasonable’ and ‘genuine ability’
are open to interpretation. There are no additional guidance notes.
•
There is no information on alteration of conditions to include
diversification or alternative occupations.
•
The policy is not clear in its requirements.
Conversion of Rural Buildings
North Norfolk District Council Policy 29 (The Re-Use and Adaptation
of Buildings in the Countryside). This policy supports the re-use of
appropriately located and suitably constructed rural buildings. It also
considers the importance of design in conversion, The Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, and the impact on the overall landscape.
Areas for modification/improvement
4.5.4
•
The policy which considers residential conversion appropriate in or
adjacent to towns or villages does not necessarily encourage the
most appropriate scheme.
•
The policy includes detail on highways and may not allow for small
traffic increases and should be brought in line with PPG 13.
•
Commencement of development within two years can be restrictive
if the applicant needs to gain building regulations, grant approval
and funding. A two year timescale may be too short.
•
Current policies are preventing full utilisation of the existing rural
built environment.
AONB and Other Landscape Issues
North Norfolk District Council Policy 20, 21 & 24 protect the AONB
Areas for modification/improvement
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 20 of 174
•
4.5.5
Policies 21 and 24 are unnecessarily restrictive. The AONB and the
Broads and its setting cover a large area of agricultural land and can
be negative towards agricultural development proposals,
unnecessarily.
Farm Diversification
North Norfolk District Council Policy 76 (Farm Diversification) and
Policy 88(Farm Shops) – There is recognition of the importance of
diversification.
Areas for modification/improvement
4.5.6
•
The policy does not set out specific criteria relating to agricultural
diversification.
•
It is not supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes.
•
It does not give detailed criteria on the wider benefit of
diversification.
•
It does not give detail on acceptable highways implications.
•
The policy on farm shops is restrictive on sale of non local produce.
This is constraining businesses and resulting in local foods being
harder to market.
Replacement Buildings
No policy exists in the North Norfolk District Council Local Plan 1998
due to changes in Government Policy since its publication. PPS7 states
that the Government is supportive of the replacement of suitably
located, existing buildings of permanent design and construction in the
countryside for economic development purposes. The replacement of
buildings should be favoured where this would result in a more
acceptable and sustainable development than might be achieved through
conversion, for example, where the replacement building would bring
about an environmental improvement in terms of the impact of the
development on its surroundings and the landscape. Local planning
authorities should set out in their LDDs the criteria they will apply to
the replacement of countryside buildings. These should take account of
the considerations set out in paragraph 17 that apply to the conversion
and reuse for economic purposes of existing buildings in the
countryside. Authorities should also set out the circumstances where
replacement would not be acceptable and clarify the permissible scale
of replacement buildings.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 21 of 174
4.5.7
Recreation and Tourism
North Norfolk District Council Policy 108. This policy includes the reuse of existing rural buildings and protects the AONB.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
All proposed developments should be outside the AONB and the
special landscape area which may restrict occupational schemes
within the areas.
•
Restrictive policy and provision of indoor sports facilities in rural
locations due to accessibility and highways.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 117 (Horses). The positive
aspects of the policy are that a specific policy exists and that guidance is
given in a policy.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
Restrictive policy in relation to highways and bridleways when onfarm riding could be provided.
•
Policies open to interpretation.
•
No inclusion of set criteria for supporting equine enterprises that
maintain environmental quality and countryside character.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 123 (Static Caravan Sites). This
policy protects the AONB and enhancement and improvement of
existing sites is encouraged.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
There is no specific policy on small scale log cabin siting as farm
diversification e.g. log cabins with fisheries or horse riding
facilities.
Policy 125 (Touring Caravan Sites). There are specific policies and the
AONB and undeveloped coast is protected.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 128(Loss of Un-serviced Holiday
Accommodation). This retains important holiday accommodation and
is site specific.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Does not consider circumstances when holiday occupancy
conditions should be lifted.
Page 22 of 174
5
Whilst all Local Authorities take Government advice as the basis of their
forward planning process significant variations in approach do arise. As part of
this study councils who have Beacon status in terms of supporting the rural
economy were looked at in more detail. These councils are :Lancashire County Council
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Waverley Borough Council
Caradon District Council
Richmondshire District Council
Tynedale Council
Lincolnshire and South Holland District Council
The beacon scheme exists to facilitate the sharing of excellent practice so that
best value authorities can learn from one another.
Analysis has taken the format of the 8 areas identified as being the cornerstone
of rural policy. The following details summarise some of the key features of
the beacon status Local Authority plans.
Agricultural Buildings and Land
•
Development on agricultural land and Greenfield sites only allowed after
all other sites considered. Recognises that PPS7 encourages farmers to
diversify. Local plan seeks to minimise loss of agricultural land. Seeks to
concentrate new development in towns and selected villages. Recognises
that the countryside plays an important role within recreation. Whilst
supporting diversification and conversion of farm buildings, the
countryside must be protected.
•
Development for the purposes of agriculture or forestry within the
countryside will be permitted provided it does not have an adverse impact
on the landscape, conservation sites, monuments or listed buildings. The
use of sympathetic materials will be required in sensitive locations
•
The use of best and most versatile agricultural land for any development
associated with agriculture or forestry will not be permitted unless there is a
strong case for development. Proposals for intensive agricultural
development will be permitted if they do not harm views, the colour of the
buildings is minimised, proper vehicular access is provided and there is no
impact in terms of smell, noise and discharge.
•
The use of land for development in upland or on best and most versatile
land will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need. New farm
buildings sited on sites of an open nature will require considerably higher
design and landscaping standards.
•
Permission will be granted for agricultural development provided that the
proposal is reasonably necessary, does not detract from the character of the
rural landscape and the materials etc are appropriate to the surrounding
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 23 of 174
area, the proposal would not give rise to significant noise and disturbance,
the amount of traffic generated would not prejudice safety and vehicular
access can be achieved.
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions
•
Proposals for new dwellings in the open countryside, including other rural
settlements, will only be permitted where such development is specifically
provided for under other policies of the plan.
•
The only exception to policies which resist new housing development in the
open countryside is where accommodation is required to enable a farm
worker or other essential workers to live in the immediate vicinity of their
workplace.
•
Applicants must demonstrate that there is a genuine need for the proposed
accommodation, and that an enterprise to which the functional need relates
is profitable. Size, siting and design are also considered.
•
The process is the same as that in PPS7.
•
Planning applications for the removal of a rural workers occupancy
condition will only be approved where it can be convincingly demonstrated
that the longer term need for dwellings for rural workers in the locality no
longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose.
•
The removal of an occupancy condition will only be granted where it is
demonstrated that there is no longer a functional need and it is
demonstrated that there is no need in the area for agricultural worker’s
dwellings and a sustained attempt has been made to market the property.
Conversion of rural buildings
•
Proposals for the re-use or adoption of existing buildings outside defined
settlement limits to residential use will only be permitted where the council
is satisfied the building is unsuitable for employment uses, the building is
of permanent and substantial condition, conversion can be achieved without
affecting the merit of the building, the design is sympathetic to the building
and the building is capable of conversion without significant alteration.
•
The change of use or conversion of existing buildings in the open
countryside will be permitted for the following uses: Small scale
employment, holiday accommodation, recreational uses (including camping
barns and bunk houses), tourist facilities and new rural enterprises,
including farm diversification.
•
All proposals for the change of use or conversion of existing buildings in
the open countryside will be required to fulfil criteria such as construction
criteria, affects on other rural amenities, the effect on the surrounding
landscape and nature conservation issues.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 24 of 174
•
The change of use or conversion to residential use will only be permitted
where it can be demonstrated that employment generating uses are not
suitable.
•
Conditions withdrawing agricultural permitted development rights may be
attached to permissions for the conversion of existing buildings to non
agricultural uses.
Conversion of low cost housing
•
In the countryside development proposals for affordable housing schemes
promoted by the council, housing associations, civil parish councils, village
trusts and other similar organisations may be permitted on sites not
appropriate for general housing development, provided that the applicant
demonstrates that there is a genuine local need, the scheme will meet the
need, the number of houses proposed does not exceed the need, existing
housing cannot meet the need, the site adjoins the boundary of a village,
there would be no adverse effect on the character of the village and the
scheme does not include any element of market housing.
•
In selected small villages development proposals for more than four
dwellings may be permitted provided that all the excess dwellings are for
affordable housing.
•
The District council considers the provision of affordable housing to meet
the needs of local people to be one of the most important issues facing it.
The council therefore defines “Affordable Housing” as being homes
provided to meet the needs of people who cannot afford to buy or rent
suitable property on the open market. The council is following the
following three routes to ensure maximum delivery: Direct Provision by the
District Council; Provision by Registered Social Landlords or Charities; or
Provision by Private Developers.
•
The council will, where a relevant local need has been established, seek to
negotiate with developers to secure an appropriate element of affordable
housing on allocated and windfall sites. The housing provided under this
policy should, where appropriate, be amiable for the life of the property to
provide affordable housing for local people
Local Plan Policies relating to AONBs and landscape designations
•
For designated sites, the Council will seek to conserve the critical nature
conservation value for which they were designated, Proposals for
development which may affect such sites will be assessed. Such sites will
be assessed against a number of criteria.
•
Development will not normally be permitted which may directly or
indirectly destroy or adversely impair the integrity of wildlife corridors and
other areas which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna. The
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 25 of 174
District Council will, in co-operation with others, seek opportunities to
consolidate and strengthen wildlife corridors.
•
Priority will be given to the protection and enhancement of the landscape
qualities of the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Development within or adjacent to the AONB which adversely affects the
special scenic quality of the AONB will not be permitted.
•
Any large scale development within or adjacent to the AONB will only be
permitted, when it is proven to be in the national interest and there are no
alternative sites in less sensitive areas.
•
Development in the AONBs and Heritage Coast will not be permitted
unless the development is sited as to minimise its visual impact on the
landscape, is designed so as to reflect locally distinctive character,
traditional building styles and local materials and conforms to the locally
characteristic patterns of settlement.
Farm Diversification
6
•
Proposals for farm diversification projects will be permitted provided that
the following criteria are met: It is considered as a legitimate form of farm
diversification; The economic activity proposed relates to a specific use or
range of uses rather than to a use class; Existing or redundant rural
buildings are utilised wherever it is practical to do so; It does not result in
excessive expansion and encroachment of building development into the
countryside; It does no result in an unacceptable traffic impact on roads
servicing the site; The development would not result in an adverse impact
on neighbouring residential properties or the local landscape and
environment.
•
Outside settlements, proposals for farm shops and other small scale retail
outlets will be permitted where criteria such as the scale, design and
landscaping of new or converted facilities does not detract from the visual
amenity of the surroundings and no detriment would be caused to highway
safety.
•
Proposals for the diversification of a farm enterprise will be permitted,
where the criteria including the following are met; Where relevant, the
proposal retains existing, or provides additional or alternative employment;
and where possible, existing buildings are utilised.
The new North Norfolk Local Development Framework needs to take account
of current Government advice but should also draw on other studies and reports
of which a number have been identified as detailed below. These are not
intended to be an exhaustive list but are those documents/studies which
provided relevant useful guidance.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 26 of 174
6.1
National Planning Policy
6.1.1
PPS 7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
These policies will need to be taken into account by local planning authorities
in the preparation of local development documents.
Government objectives for rural areas in PPS 7 include the following:(i)
To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural
areas through the promotion of:
-
thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities;
-
sustainable economic growth and diversification;
-
good quality, sustainable development; and
-
continued protection of the open countryside.
(ii)
To promote more sustainable patterns of development:
-
focusing most development in, or next to, existing towns and
villages;
-
preventing urban sprawl;
-
discouraging the development of 'greenfield' land;
-
promoting a range of uses; and
-
providing appropriate leisure opportunities.
(iii)
Promoting the development of the English regions by
improving their economic performance by developing
competitive, diverse and thriving rural enterprise that
provides a range of jobs and underpins strong economies.
(iv)
To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture
sectors where farming achieves high environmental
standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and
manages valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes
both directly and indirectly to rural economic diversity; is
itself competitive and profitable; and provides high quality
products that the public wants.
Paragraph 27 of PPS7 covers agricultural development.
Paragraph 10 of PPS7 covers policy on new agricultural dwellings.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 27 of 174
Paragraph 17 of PPS 7 details re-use of buildings in the countryside.
In planning for housing in their rural areas, local planning authorities
should apply the policies in PPG3
Paragraph 24 and 25 of PPS7 gives advice on local landscape
designations.
Local landscape designations should only be maintained or,
exceptionally, extended where it can be clearly shown that criteriabased planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection. When
reviewing their local area-wide development plans and LDDs, planning
authorities should rigorously consider the justification for retaining
existing local landscape designations.
Paragraph 30 of PPS7 advises on farm diversification.
Recognising that diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital
to the continuing viability of many farm enterprises. Local planning
authorities should be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification
schemes for business purposes that contribute to sustainable
development objectives and help to sustain the agricultural enterprise,
and are consistent in their scale with their rural location.
Paragraph 19 of PPS7 gives specific guidance on replacement of
buildings in the countryside.
Paragraph 34 of PPS7 outlines detail on tourism and leisure.
Equine related activities are also covered in paragraph 32.
The policies should provide for a range of suitably located recreational
and leisure facilities and, where appropriate, for the needs of training
and breeding businesses. They should also facilitate the re-use of farm
buildings for small-scale horse enterprises that provide a useful form of
farm diversification.
6.1.2
PPG 13 - Transport
This guidance gives detailed policy on transport, the objectives of this
guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national,
regional, strategic and local level.
In order to reduce the need for long-distance out-commuting to jobs in
urban areas, it is important to promote adequate employment
opportunities in rural areas. Diversification of agricultural businesses is
increasingly likely to lead to proposals for conversion or re-use of
existing farm buildings for other business purposes, possibly in remote
locations. PPS7 indicates that for development related to agriculture
and for farm diversification, appropriate new buildings may also be
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 28 of 174
acceptable. In plan policies and development control decisions, local
authorities should encourage farm diversification proposals particularly,
but not exclusively, where this enables access by public transport,
walking and cycling. They should be realistic about the availability, or
likely availability, of alternatives to access by car. Similarly, they
should not reject proposals where small-scale business development or
its expansion would give rise to only modest additional daily vehicle
movements, in comparison to other uses that are permitted on the site,
and the impact on minor roads would not be significant.
6.1.3
PPG3 - Housing
In terms of overall housing provision, only a limited amount of housing
can be expected to be accommodated in expanded villages. Whilst
occasionally a village could be the basis for a new settlement most
proposals for additional housing will involve infill development or
peripheral expansion.
Villages will only be suitable locations for accommodating significant
additional housing where:
6.1.4
•
It can be demonstrated that additional housing will support local
services, especially where the village has been identified as a local
service centre in the development plan;
•
Additional houses are needed to meet local needs, such as
affordable housing; and
•
The development can be designed sympathetically and laid out in
keeping with the character of the village.
PPS 6
This statement whilst not applicable to rural development was produced
to protect and develop town centres which can on occasions conflict
with positive rural policies.
6.2
Other Guidance/Influences to Future Policy
There are a number of other reports and studies which can provide
assistance when looking at formulating local policy. The following is
by no means an exhaustive list but does encompass many of the issues
previously identified.
6.2.1
Rural Delivery Pathfinders - DEFRA
The aim of pathfinders is to ‘pilot’ processes which will potentially be
useful nationwide.
The aims of pathfinders are to experiment with and test:
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 29 of 174
6.2.2
•
ways of achieving more joined-up delivery of services in rural areas,
addressing economic, social and environmental issues through a
partnership approach;
•
where practicable, innovation in rural development and delivery of
services in rural areas, building as appropriate on existing best
practice; and
•
better prioritisation of existing resources, in line with local
priorities, towards areas, communities and people with the greatest
needs.
Regional Rural Delivery Framework for the East of England
The document outlines the challenges facing rural areas in the East of
England. These are:
6.2.3
•
support entrepreneurship and sustainable rural business growth;
•
ensure that the least well performing rural areas in the region are
addressed in terms of increasing productivity;
•
create and regenerate thriving communities in which there are local
employment opportunities for good quality jobs, a supply of
affordable housing for local people and access to services including
health, education, skills, transport, business support and ICT;
•
enable a productive and sustainable food and farming industry to
flourish, mitigating the impacts and optimising the opportunities of
CAP reform whilst conserving and enhancing the potential of the
natural environment and heritage.
East of England Delivery Plans for Sustaining Farming and Food
The government sustainable farming and food strategy (SFFS) was
published in December 2002. The government office for the East of
England have developed their own plan with action areas and projects.
These include the efficient use of water, marketing of local food and
development of food trails.
6.2.4
PPG 7 Implemented in Relation to the Diversification of Farm
Businesses – ODPM
The Study looked at some of the key issues from PPG 7 and how they
were being implemented by various local authorities. The documents
contain what can be described as a best practice, approaches to policy
formulation.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 30 of 174
In a survey of planning officers a number saw their plans as being more
restrictive than PPG 7
6.2.5
The Federation of Small Businesses East of England Area Policy Unit
The section on Rural Issues calls for the following:
It is perceived that planning policy is designed to meet the needs of
urban communities and then applied to rural ones, irrespective of
whether or not it is appropriate.
Often applicants find the process difficult and advice hard to obtain.
Advice should be available in an easily understood format on council
websites, or else in booklet form. In addition planning officers should
have surgeries where people can discuss planning issues affecting them.
The lack of consistency in policies is a major issue and often influenced
by national guidelines or regulations rather than the need for local
considerations.
Despite encouragements from central government members have
reported difficulties in obtaining planning consent for the conversion of
redundant farm buildings with highways issues often overriding
economic ones.
Business rate relief should be offered to all eligible businesses in all
rural districts.
6.2.6
The Characteristics of Businesses Using Rural Buildings - RICS
Research February 2005
The document provides useful background to government policy on the
change of use of buildings. The report uses primary research of
businesses using rural buildings some of the main findings were:
ƒ
Over one third said they intended to expand on their current site.
ƒ
The majority of the businesses were involved in some sort of
service provision.
ƒ
A high proportion were new start ups (41%).
ƒ
68.5% were local businesses with no other site.
ƒ
HGV use was rare with 68% stating no HGV deliveries.
ƒ
The main travel distances were 8 miles for employers and 11 miles
for employees.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 31 of 174
ƒ
A significant proportion of workers commute from urban areas to
converted buildings.
In conclusion the study found that the re-use of rural buildings was a
very dynamic force in the rural economy although it was dependant
upon the private car.
The study recognises that its findings were too late to have an influence
on government policy in PPS7.
6.2.7
Consultation Draft – Strategy for the Horse Industry in England and
Wales, British Horse Industry Federation February 2005
The government has recognised the importance horses now play in the
rural economy hence their inclusion in PPS7. The strategic aims and
objectives of this strategy are all about raising skills and provision of
facilities which will have planning implications.
6.2.8
Norfolk County Council Local Policies and Standards for Highways
Development Control in Norfolk. Norfolk County Council December
2004
The role of highways in rural developments are significant, especially
when many proposals are not served by ideal roads in policy terms.
Ensuring highway safety in line with Highways Policies whilst ensuring
rural businesses can thrive is a key challenge in any local policy
formulation.
6.2.9
The Price and Affordability of Dwellings with Occupancy Conditions.
Acorus May 2004.
Acorus have produced two of the above reports, the last in Mid 2004.
By analysing a number of sales of agriculturally tied property the aim
was to identify what the market was for agricultural dwellings with
agricultural occupancy conditions. This is important where a Local
Authority is seeking to establish whether there is a need for an
agricultural dwelling based on marketing evidence. The study showed
that agricultural dwellings sold for between 5% and 28% of the value if
a tie wasn’t present. This would back up a view that when a house is
marketed above their levels and doesn’t sell, it is the local market not
the price which prevented a sale.
6.2.10 National Farmers Retail and Market Association
This organisation supports and promoted farm shops and markets
nationwide. They currently have a campaign titled “21 reasons to be
excited about local food”
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 32 of 174
6.2.11 Research by N.C.C – Through re-use of redundant farm buildings.
North Norfolk Country Council currently operates an advice and grant
scheme on the re-use of rural buildings. The results of their initial
research were looked at related to this project.
6.2.12 North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP)
North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP) brings together the
Parish and Town Councils, the District and County Council, the police,
the health service, businesses, community and voluntary groups to work
together to produce a concerted and co-ordinated approach to the
delivery of services in the communities of North Norfolk
(www.northnorfolk.org/nncp/default.htm ).
Future Community Aspirations
Research carried out in 2002/03 identified eight key areas as themes for
action. They were:
ƒ
Housing
ƒ
Transport
ƒ
Community safety
ƒ
Economy
ƒ
Heath and Social care
ƒ
Environment and Outdoor Recreation
ƒ
Leisure and culture
ƒ
Learning and skills
6.2.13 Farmer’s voice survey and Farmer’s attitudes survey (ADAS)
The findings from the latest ADAS Farmer’s Voice Survey show that
nearly a quarter of all farmers in England and Wales are expecting their
farming practices to change. A similar number (20%) either have no
idea what that change will need to be, or think that they will have to
give up farming completely as uncertainty and pessimism about CAP
reform pervades many sections of the farming industry. 46% of the
farmers questioned believed that the impact of CAP reforms in their
regions will be negative.
The survey findings pointed to the fact that farmers do not fully
understand the implications of CAP reform. Also that farmers planned
to reduce the intensity of how they farm. Those responding predicted
an average decline in winter cereal area of 4% while a decrease of 12%
in suckler cow numbers was envisaged (ADAS News Release: Farmers
Concerned over CAP Reform).
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 33 of 174
7
The potential implications of land use planning policies on agricultural trends.
The key trends for the rural economy and their implications have been
identified and summarised within Section 1.
They are based on two main shifts in agriculture, namely rationalisation and
broadening operations to add value to primary produce.
Land use planning policies are likely to have an impact on these trends:a)
b)
The rationalisation of the agricultural industry in North Norfolk is likely
to create the following land use issues:•
A requirement for larger more centralised purpose built agricultural
buildings.
•
A surplus of outdated buildings both traditional and modern.
•
A further reduction in full time labour employed in agriculture, and
an increase in seasonal workers. This will result in an increase in
houses with agricultural occupancy conditions no longer required
for agricultural labourers.
•
An increase in grassland but reduction in agriculture livestock.
•
IPPC Regulations will lead to loss of pig and poultry units but
others will need to improve facilities, expand or relocate.
Businesses are being encouraged through government initiatives to add
value to their produce which will create the following land use issues.
There is likely to be an increased requirement for smaller high labour
specialist enterprises producing high quality products for niche markets.
Products could be processed and packaged on farm. Therefore these
enterprises may require on site supervision and specialist buildings
which would require planning permission. The products could be
marketed through farm shops and farmers markets on farms.
c)
Diversification of the whole rural economy is already taking place.
These diversified enterprises utilise redundant land, buildings and rural
labour force in addition to stimulating the rural economy as a whole.
Due to economics, market demand and government initiatives, land use
planning polices will have an impact on the direction of these trends and should
consider the maintenance and management of the countryside, in addition to
the rural economy as a whole. Production will be increasingly driven by
economic viability so economies of scale and efficiency of capital investment
will be crucial to land remaining in production.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 34 of 174
Positive policies on agricultural buildings should enable the continued
rationalisation of agricultural businesses enabling land to remain in production.
If there is no positive policy on the development of agricultural buildings, more
land and buildings could come out of production which could have negative
landscape impacts in addition to further rural unemployment.
Continued rationalisation will inevitably lower demand for agricultural
dwellings. Planning policies could enable these conditions to be altered to
provide local or low costs housing.
Any policy on removal of occupancy conditions should be specific in terms of
exact requirements for removal. It should consider changes in markets and
requirements for agricultural dwellings on the holding and in the locality. This
should prevent abuse of the planning system and retain agricultural housing
where it is required. If policies allowed amendments to other relevant
occupations e.g. equine it could help to facilitate an efficient diversification of
the rural economy reducing the need to build more new houses in the
countryside.
Policies should enable dwellings to be built in countryside locations where
essential. Therefore enabling rural businesses to be profitable and well
managed which can have a positive impact on the rural landscape and economy
in terms of employment. Policies should however ensure the dwellings are
essential and that the associated business is likely to be financially sustainable
in the future. This should prevent abuse of the concession that the planning
system makes for such dwellings.
Rationalisation together with on farm processing and packaging has led to the
use of seasonal workers in some areas that is currently being provided under
permitted development rights through mobile homes. This can create
landscape problems and a poor standard of housing. A planning policy
allowing conversion of existing buildings to seasonal workers’ hostels could
mitigate the impact of housing seasonal workers in rural areas.
This study shows that the trends in agriculture are likely to continue to create
redundant buildings in rural areas. The re-use of these buildings could help to
stimulate the rural economy and avoid dereliction and adverse impacts on the
landscape. However, the re-use of these buildings will be dependant on the
economic viability of potential uses. If no economically viable use can be
found, the buildings will fall into disrepair and dereliction before being lost as
an asset to the rural built environment.
Farm diversification is likely to become more important to the viability of the
rural economy. Positive policies on diversification will encourage this.
Diversification policies should consider landscape implications, traffic
generation, and impact on neighbours and should be planned on a sound
financial basis. This will prevent damage to the character of the landscape,
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 35 of 174
road network problems and nuisance. A business plan should show the level of
employment and economic value to the area associated with the development.
Keeping horses is a growing trend in the UK and in North Norfolk, it can
encourage tourism, provide employment, utilise existing buildings and land
that could otherwise go out of production. With the reduction in livestock,
horses can be used as an alternative when keeping grassland in well managed
production. Planning policies should support equestrian development that
maintains environmental quality and landscape character. Floodlights, outside
storage of hay and straw bedding and show jumps could have adverse impacts
on the landscape.
Diversification can often utilise existing buildings but occasionally new build is
more appropriate e.g. environmental requirements of food processing plants.
Replacement of redundant buildings could be an alternative to new build in this
situation. Policies could provide for this type of development but would need
to consider the size and scale of replacement buildings, the importance of the
existing buildings and the effect on the existing surroundings.
These recommendations have been based on a detailed rural economy study.
Policy decisions in these areas must be linked with the overall strategy of the
district.
8
Recommendation for North Norfolk’s Future Policy Direction
Based on the primary research and desk research of published data including
National Polity it is considered North Norfolk District Council should
formulate policies that strike the correct balance between protecting the
countryside, in particular the AONB, but also recognise the significant changes
in agriculture both historically and in the future.
The recommendations have been based on a detailed rural economy study.
Policy decisions in these areas must be linked with the overall strategy of the
district, for example; housing strategy, tourism, transport, industrial
development/employment.
8.1
Agricultural Buildings
Specific policy on planning applications for agricultural buildings is required
with particular reference to intensive livestock and relevance of new
regulations is required, e.g. IPPC.
The current policy on prior approval should remain but a new policy is required
for agricultural development to cover crop and general stores, livestock
buildings and horticultural development.
In this respect a policy similar to East Yorkshire 1997 adopted policy would be
suitable i.e.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 36 of 174
“Permission will be granted for agricultural, horticultural or forestry related
development provided that:(a)
the proposal is related to and located on an existing unit, and is
reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or
forestry within that unit;
(b)
it would not significantly detract from the character of the rural
landscape;
(c)
the location, scale, design, colour and materials are appropriate to the
character and appearance of the surrounding area;
(d)
the proposal would not give rise to significant noise and disturbance to
the occupiers of nearby residential properties or otherwise adversely
affect residential amenities, for example by reason of dust, odour or
effluent;
(e)
the amount of traffic likely to be generated would not prejudice
highway safety or cause significant harm to the environmental character
of country roads, and
(f)
satisfactory vehicular access can be achieved”.
A footnote to the effect that proposals required to meet the requirement of new
legislation, i.e. IPPC would be viewed favourably. In assessing an application
account will be taken of the improvement on the existing unit.
A key issue is the more restrictive treatment of agricultural buildings in the
AONB, which is generally accepted to be the right approach. Greater
difficulties arise with the area of High Landscape value which is seen to be too
restrictive given it covers a large area of the district.
8.2
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions
It is recommended that 2 policies for new dwellings are appropriate. One for
permanent agricultural dwellings and one for temporary, reflecting the differing
approaches in annex A of PPS 7. The policies also need to reflect other
occupational dwellings.
8.2.1
Permanent Dwellings
A policy similar to the following could be appropriate.
New permanent dwellings in the countryside for agriculture, forestry or
other occupational requirements will only be permitted where:
i)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
There is a clear functional requirement for a person to be
resident on site;
Page 37 of 174
ii)
The need is full-time;
iii)
The unit is established, profitable and economically viable;
iv)
There are no other dwellings on the holding or locally which
would fulfil the need.
A footnote to the effect that when a need has been identified an
agricultural dwelling should be of a size the unit can sustain A guide of
180m² - 200m² maybe appropriate.
8.2.2
Temporary Dwellings
A policy along the following is required
A temporary dwelling for agriculture, forestry or other occupational
purposes will only be permitted where:
8.2.3
i)
Significant evidence is provided to show the business has been
planned on a sound financial basis;
ii)
There will be a functional requirement to live on site;
iii)
There are no other dwellings on the holding or locally which
would fulfil the need;
iv)
There is a realistic prospect that the business will meet the
requirement of policy X (permanent dwellings)
Hostels for Seasonal Workers
In some areas of the country large grouping of mobile homes, which
can be exempt from planning permission, have created landscape and
other concerns. North Norfolk should consider introducing a policy
which may support conversion of buildings for the provision of hostels
when they are relevant to the units they wish to serve.
8.2.4
Occupancy Condition Removal
The first paragraph of the existing policy is entirely suitable but criteria
a) and b) are not clear and references to parishes are too prescriptive
and gives rise to differing geographical interpretation.
An alternative maybe;
a)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
the applicant has shown that the property has been marketed
with sufficient publicity to the agricultural community, over a
minimum of 6 months;
Page 38 of 174
b)
8.2.5
The property has been available at a price reflecting the
condition which would normally be a 30% reduction on its open
market value.
Amendments/Alterations of Conditions
A further consideration is amendment of the conditions to include other
occupational businesses (e.g. equine), local need housing and holiday
use. In these cases it should not be necessary to undertake any
marketing. Such applications should be judged favourably.
The study looked at whether agricultural dwellings could be used for
low cost housing and investigating this could be made a requirement of
any removal. However it is considered the range of housing types and
issues make this inappropriate.
8.3
Conversion of Rural Buildings
The existing policy, number 29, needs little change other than related to
residential use and to reflect the latest advice in PPS 7 to encourage buildings
to be converted to the most appropriate use.
The recommendation is to remove the first section and introduce a policy on
residential along the following lines:Conversion to residential use will only be permitted where:
i)
The residential element is part of a mixed scheme including business reuse or
ii)
The building is worthy of preservation and residential use is the only
way this can be achieved
iii)
The conversion scheme can be incorporated without alteration to the
fabric and retains the barns appearance.
This will encourage the development of mixed schemes including in or on the
edge and within villages to meet sustainability objectives and will ensure
important buildings wherever they are located have a chance of preservation.
8.4
Low Cost Housing
This was not specifically part of the remit although it did arise in relation to
removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. It is not considered that a
restrictive policy requiring such a use is achievable or appropriate in North
Norfolk although it should be an option.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 39 of 174
8.5
Land Use in AONB and Agricultural Land Quality
Protecting high quality agricultural land is no longer the cornerstone of
Government advice and should be viewed alongside other sustainability
considerations, however given the importance of agriculture in the North
Norfolk district, retention of a policy maybe appropriate. An alternative
wording to policy 22 should reflect that other sustainable issues maybe more
important and developers should not make decisions based too heavily on land
quality considerations.
8.6
Farm Diversification
Generally
A clear policy is essential to recognise the Government policy in PPS 7.
Whilst other policies in the LDF will be important, diversification should have
its own policy and criteria. Suggested wording would be as follows:“Farm diversification proposals will be allowed where:a) the proposal does not unacceptably impact upon the amenities of residents;
b) the proposed access and level of traffic generated by the proposal is within
the capacity of existing approach roads, when compared with the permitted
agricultural use and would not be detrimental to the amenity of the locality
or prejudice highway safety;
c) the proposal does not result in demonstrable harm to the landscape and
nature conservation; and
d) building requirements are met through the conversion of suitable existing
buildings or replacement buildings. New buildings will only be approved
where the activity proposed cannot be met through the conversion of an
existing building and where the new structure does not result in excessive
expansion of built development into the countryside.
e) The proposal should be planned on a sound financial basis.
Farm Shops
A policy on farm shops should be retained but needs flexibility in terms of
‘imported’ goods to ensure farm shops can operate all year round especially
when local produce might not be available and labour needs to be retained.
Horses
North Norfolk Policy is written in a restrictive manner.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 40 of 174
A policy similar in nature to the existing policy is appropriate, although given
the importance of horses to the rural economy the policy should be more
positive and state:
“development proposals involving horses will be permitted subject that it:
(a)
would have no detrimental effect upon the appearance and character of
the surrounding landscape;
(b)
would have no detrimental effect upon areas of nature conservation
interest;
(c)
would have no significant detrimental effect on the residential amenities
of nearby occupiers;
(d)
would not impair highways safety; and
(e)
are well sited in relation to bridle-ways, roads used as public paths and
unclassified metalled roads if required or unless on farm riding is
provided.”
The current local plan in its definition reference paragraph 12.63 outlines the
unsightly nature of many equine facilities. Any new LDF should explain that
these facilities require planning permission as only grazing is exempt from
specific permission. A supplementary document maybe appropriate.
8.7
Replacement Building
Given previous diversification of the rural economy and the fact that some rural
buildings may not necessarily be of the best design or layout, Government
policy recognises that replacement maybe appropriate. North Norfolk Should
have a policy to cover such development along the following lines:
The replacement of buildings in the countryside outside the development
boundary will be allowed subject to the following:1)
The building is not of historical or architectural importance;
2)
The building to be replaced is of permanent construction and
structurally sound;
3)
The replacement building is of a similar size and scale as the building to
be replaced.
4)
The new building will provide environmental improvement compared
to the old building;
5)
There will be no detrimental effect on surrounding buildings especially
those of historic or architectural importance.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 41 of 174
8.8
Recreation and Tourism
Again this was not a specific area subject to the study on which specific
recommendations are required but does have significant Rural Economy
implications, particularly related to change of use of buildings and farm
diversification. The various surveys and workshops identified a possible over
supply of holiday accommodation although that is an economic matter and
should not necessarily be restricted within planning policy.
8.9
Highways
Highways is a common theme which has an effect on all levels of development.
There is a perception that in some cases highways advice is over negative and
does not recognise the level of traffic that would arise from the permitted
agricultural use.
Advice also needs to be tempered against the general standard of roads in North
Norfolk.
Whilst highways policy is a county matter and cannot be specifically addressed
in the new LDF, it is an area North Norfolk need to be aware of, and, if
necessary encourage a more flexible approach.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 42 of 174
SECTION 2
The Current Agricultural
Climate – National and North
Norfolk
Project Aim
Agriculture within the region
Sector profitability
Employment in agriculture
Drivers of change within agriculture
Agricultural diversification
Farmer controlled business (pcbs)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 43 of 174
1
PROJECT AIM
The aim of this project is to assist North Norfolk District Council in the
formulation of core strategy and site specific policies for the North Norfolk
Local Development Framework (LDF). The project outputs will ensure these
policies are based on a sound understanding of both current and likely future
requirements of agriculture and the wider rural economy.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 44 of 174
2.
AGRICULTURE WITHIN THE EAST OF ENGLAND REGION
North Norfolk is situated within the East of England Region. Water is a key
factor in the environment and economy of the region. It is low-lying, coastal
and vulnerable to flooding. The wetland habitats include lowland and chalk
rivers, fens and wet grasslands. Rural areas cover 79% of the East of England
Region, with a relatively high proportion of land under arable and horticulture.
All of the county of Norfolk is relatively remote, sparsely populated and
heavily dependant on a vulnerable agricultural industry. Many of the regions
coastal areas, wetlands, and pastoral areas are subject to national and
international protection measures. The area also attracts large numbers of
tourists to areas such as ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ (AONB).
The soil in the eastern part of the region, the low lying fens, is mainly of
excellent quality for agriculture (Grade 1). Soils are developed in marine silt or
deep peat. However, the peat tends to suffer wind erosion and oxidisation
which threatens the long term land quality. Land of good to moderate quality,
grades 2 and 3, is widespread throughout the region and corresponds to a wide
range of soil types.
The East of England region contains some 2,000km of river and drain fisheries.
Many rivers are slow flowing and intensive agriculture poses a threat in terms
of nutrient leaching. There is a diverse range of coastal and semi-natural
habitats in the Region. In addition, arable fields and farmland features such as
hedgerows support a variety of wildlife. The importance of the Region’s
biodiversity is reflected in the many designations for habitats and species
however, many of these are threatened by intensive farming practices and
development.
About 40% of the woodland in the region is ancient or semi natural woodland,
with 38% of coniferous woodland. The arable habitat is extensive but due to
intensive agricultural practices there has been a decline in biodiversity. Areas
of grassland have been improved. The internationally scarce resource of
lowland heath land is to be found in North Norfolk.
Soft rock cliffs, sand dunes and shingle occur at numerous locations along the
Norfolk coastlines. There are large areas of salt marsh on the region’s coast,
mostly lying within the estuaries.
Some 7.5% of the land area is designated as National Park, AONB or Heritage
Coast.
There is a dominance of cereal and general cropping farm types across the East
of England region. The farm type profile for the region is very different from
that of England in two major respects. There are very few dairy holdings.
Cereal farming and general cropping dominate the region, and account for over
half of the holdings.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 45 of 174
Percentage of farm type in East of England compared to England (2004):
35%
33% 33%
30%
Percentage of holdings
25%
25%
21%
20%
East of England
England
14%
15%
12%
11%
10%
10%
9%
9%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
2%
1%
0%
Cereals
General
Cropping
Horticulture
Pigs & Poultry
Dairy
Grazing
Livestock
Mixed
Other
(Source: Taken from DEFRA – 2004 Census data)
Due to the favourable climate and soils, the East of England region is
intensively cropped. The region accounts for 26% of the cereal area, 50% of
the sugar beet crop and 30% of all horticultural crops in England.
Within the East of England region there is a higher proportion of farm holdings
over 100 hectares (247 acres) compared to the national average, with 18% of
the total farm holdings in England that are over 100 ha in size.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 46 of 174
East of England Land Use, 2004 (‘000 ha):
All other land, 39, 3%
Set aside, 116, 8%
Woodland, 46, 3%
Rough grazing, 28,
2%
Grass (permanent),
158, 11%
Grass (temporary),
31, 2%
Crops and Fallow,
1,040, 71%
(Source: DEFRA – 2004 Census data)
Agricultural land use comprises 1.46 million hectares. The dominant land uses
are for cropping and fallow (71%).
There has been a decrease in the area categorised as agriculture since 1990 of
around 17,500 hectares (1.2%). This decrease is broken down into a decrease
in crops and fallow of 132,000 hectares offset by a 99,000 hectare increase in
set-aside, a 5,000 hectare increase in grassland and a 10,000 hectare increase in
woodland. The remaining land has gone into non-agricultural land use which
may include uses such as private amenity, conservation and development.
Note that over 13,500 hectares of land has been lost from agriculture since
2002 (77% of the decline since 1990)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 47 of 174
East of England distribution of holdings by size, 1990 & 2004:
12,000
10,000
Number of Holdings
8,000
1990
2004
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
< 5 ha
5 to <20 ha
20 to < 50 ha
50 to <100 ha
>100 ha
Holding Size
(Source: DEFRA – 2004 Census data)
•
By number of holdings, those under 5 hectares dominate with the next main
categories being those over 100 hectares and in the 5-20 hectare category.
Since 1990, there has been a big increase in the number of holdings under 5
hectares (from 4,685 to 9,647) and a large decrease in the 20-50 hectare and
50-100 hectare categories. The greatest decline is shown in those holdings
between 20 and 50 hectares (49 to 124 acres) in size. Holdings of this size
find it difficult to fund improvements, such as the replacement of buildings
and equipment, and so become less competitive and eventually no longer
viable. It is likely that these farms have changed ownership and become
amalgamated with others. The larger holdings benefit from economies of
scale and are able to spread their fixed costs. The statistics suggest that the
trend for fewer, larger holdings in this region is set to continue.
•
By area, farms over 100 hectares dominate with 80% of the total
agricultural land. All farms over 20 hectares comprise 96% of the
agricultural land area.
•
In 2004 there were a total of 19,851 holdings in the East of England region
with an average size of 73 hectares (180 acres).
•
Since 1990, there has been a 6% increase in the number of holdings (from
18,651) and a corresponding drop in average size (from 79 hectares)
•
Since 1990 there has been a significant decrease in the number of general
cropping farms (33% to 3,213) and all other types of farm apart from
grazing livestock (from 1,345 to 2,509), “other” farms (from 2,351 to
7,638) and “pigs and poultry” ( from 1,028 to 1,256). The number of
specialist cereal holdings has remained unchanged.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 48 of 174
•
2.1
By area, the main types comprise cereals and general cropping farms. Note
that the “other” category comprises only 3% by area.
Changes within North Norfolk from 1990 to 2004
Farm Types, Number of Holdings within North Norfolk:
500
463
450
400
356
339
Number of Holdings
350
300
1990
2004
250
200
138
150
98
100
90
85
60
54
55 56
69
33 39
50
10
8
0
Cereals
General
Cropping
Horticulture
Pigs & Poultry
Dairy
Cattle and
Sheep
Mixed
Other
Farm Type
(Source: DEFRA – 1990 and 2004 Census data)
•
The number of farms classed as general cropping has decreased by 23%,
whereas the number of farms classed as pigs and poultry has increased by
42%. These changes point towards increasing specialization, amalgamation
and expansion of the main pig producing areas. The number classed as
grazing livestock has increased by 156%. There has been relatively little
change in the number of holdings classed as cereals and horticulture. There
has been a substantial increase in the farms classed as “other” from 69
holdings to 339. It is assumed that these types of farm have diversified,
into areas such as alternative crops and non-farming activities.
•
There has been a 12% decrease in the amount of land rented in North
Norfolk, and now 70% of the land is owner occupied and farmed ‘in hand’.
This is confirmed by the North Norfolk Farmer Survey that found that 86%
of respondents were owner occupiers.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 49 of 174
Distribution of Holding Size in North Norfolk 1990 v 2004:
600
515
Number of Holdings
500
400
1990
2004
300
224
200
224
187
158
160
137
134
119
97
100
0
<5 ha
5 to 20 ha
20 to 50 ha
50 to 100 ha
>100 ha
Holding Size
(Source: DEFRA – 1990 and 2004 Census data)
•
The changes in holding size distribution mirrors that of the rest of the East
of England region and the UK, with a large increase in the number of
holdings under 5 hectares and the next dominant size being those over 100
hectares.
•
The Farmer Survey within North Norfolk indicated that in the last 5 years
25% of respondents had increased the area of land farmed, mainly for field
vegetables. Whilst 12% now farm a smaller area than 5 years ago, mainly
within the dairy, pigs and poultry sectors.
•
Whilst there has been a 25% decrease in the number of hectares growing
temporary grass, there has been a 30% increase in permanent grass and a
34% increase in rough grazing. The total amount of grass has increased
21% to 12,000 hectares. The catalyst for these changes in grassland area
has been the drive towards more extensive grazing systems to take
advantage of the livestock premiums and the environmental schemes that
have encouraged long term grassland. The falling arable margins have also
led to the least productive land being taken out of production and being put
down to set aside or grassland. Woodland has also increased by 21%,
however it still only accounts for 4% of land use.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 50 of 174
Agricultural land use in North Norfolk 2004:
1621, 2%
4372, 6%
2816, 4%
2229, 3%
Crops and fallow
Temporary grass
Permanent grass
Rough grazing
Woodland
Setaside
All other land
8619, 11%
1240, 2%
54865, 72%
(Source: DEFRA – 2004 Census data)
•
The areas of both wheat and winter barley have decreased, this is due to the
requirements for set aside, however cropping and fallow still account for
72% of land use. The North Norfolk Farmer Survey indicated that
approximately 90% of farmers had both combinable crops and sugar beet,
and almost 50% grew potatoes.
•
The area of Sugar beet has decreased by 18%. This is because of the
unprofitability of ‘C quota’ beet, the increase in yields due to modern
varieties and improved husbandry, and the cuts in quota. The number of
holdings growing potatoes has fallen by 31% however the area grown has
increased by 17%, indicative of the trend towards specialisation within this
sector. Potatoes grow well in the East of England, due to the correct soil
and climate type. There is also accessibility to irrigation, making this a
relatively easy high value crop to grow, however due to the increasing
capitalisation required to grow them profitably it is now a specialist crop.
•
A 66% decrease has been shown in the area of peas and beans grown, due
to the contraction in the fresh processing capacity within the region.
•
There has been a 224% increase in the number of hectares of maize grown
as the popularity of the crop has increased as a valuable alternative forage
to conserved grass.
•
Other vegetables and salad have decreased by 11% and total fruit by 71%,
again highlighting the inconsistent margins and degree of specialisation
required within these sectors. There has been a decrease in fruit due to the
smaller growers being unable to meet the market requirements.
•
All livestock numbers have decreased, with total cattle numbers falling by
35% and total pig numbers by 7%. The largest fall (46%) has been in the
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 51 of 174
number of breeding pigs, however these only represent 7% of the total pig
numbers in North Norfolk. Therefore the onus has changed more towards
pig finishing than breeding.
2.2
•
The number of dairy cows has fallen by 59% and the number of producers
has fallen by 52% to just 23. This reflects the general downward trend in
dairy numbers in the East of England region, with the migration of milk
production to the west of the country.
•
Whilst the total number of holdings stocking sheep has increased by 27 to
140 the total number of sheep has dropped by 20%. Sheep fit in well with
lowland management systems and holdings under ESA agreements.
Organic Farming
Organic farming requires farmers to operate to a system based on ecological
principles and imposes strict limitations on the inputs that can be used, in order
to minimise damage to the environment and wildlife.
Only 0.9% of agricultural land in the East of England Region is in organic
production, compared to 5.3% in the South West and 3.0% in the West
Midlands (2.8% in England as a whole). Only the region of Yorkshire and
Humberside has the same percentage as the East of England Region.
Compared to other regions within England, the Eastern Region is below
average in terms of the number of organic growers and producers, representing
approximately 10% of the total number of organic producers in England. The
East of England has 14% of the total organic processors within England.
The majority of organic livestock producers (46%) are situated in the South
West, with just 5% situated within the East of England.
Most of the basic organic vegetable crops that are currently imported could be
grown within the East of England region. These crops could then be marketed
to the wholesale trade, as well as directly to supermarkets for attractive
premiums. This would benefit the environment in the region as organic
farming with less artificial inputs is a more sustainable way of conserving the
region’s soil resource and lessening pollution of watercourses.
The diversity of soil types in the region offers the opportunity for farmers to
consider organic methods of production. The recently revised organic aid
package has stimulated fresh interest from conventional farmers turning to
organic methods. In the East Anglian Objective 5b region the strategic organic
project “East Anglia Food link” has provided initial organic assessments to 29
farm businesses in its first year. The project has referred an additional 25 to the
Organic Conversion Information Services (OCIS).
There has been a rapid increase in organic and organic conversion land in the
UK from 35,000ha in 1992 to over 690,269 ha in January 2005. Within the
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 52 of 174
East of England region there is a total of 12,761 hectares of land under organic
management.
Organic farming is perceived to offer some solutions to the problems currently
facing most agricultural sectors. The organic sector in Europe is rapidly
expanding. As the number of producers applying for certification of land
continues to rise, so does the uptake of support schemes for organic farming.
Organic farming schemes for converting producers have operated as part of the
Rural Development programmes in all regions of the UK since 2000.
The Farmer’s Voice survey, undertaken by ADAS Consulting in 2004 found
that organic farmers are more content with their lot than their non-organic
counterparts – 39% are happy to stay in farming as compared to 26% nonorganic.
At 16%, a greater proportion of Organic growers claimed to have increased the
area of land owned and/or farmed by them over the last 1-2 years compared to
11% for non-organic growers.
Some 70% of the organic respondents to the Farmers Voice Survey (2004)
indicated some diversified activity compared to around 50% of non-organic
producers. Key among diversified activities cited by organic farmers was:
•
Off farm non-agricultural businesses (27% c.f 16% among non-organic)
•
Farm based accommodation (22% c.f 8%)
•
Leasing of land (17% c.f 11%)
•
Equine (15% c.f 10%)
•
Leasing of buildings (13% c.f 15%)
•
Farm based food processing and/or retailing (15% c.f 8%)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 53 of 174
3.
SECTOR PROFITABILITY
In 2004, Total Income from Farming in the UK is estimated to have fallen by
over 8% in real terms and by 5.4% at current prices. This is approximately
70% above the low point in 2000 and 50% below the peak in 1995. The
dramatic rise in farming’s profitability in the early nineties followed the decline
in the euro/sterling exchange rate after the United Kingdom left the Exchange
Rate Mechanism. The equally rapid reverse in the second half of the decade
was caused by increases in the exchange rate, lower world commodity prices
and the impact of BSE.
In 2004 the effect of stronger prices in the cereal and livestock sector in the
first half of the year was more than offset by weaker prices and a lower quality
harvest in the second half of the year, resulting in a fall in real terms of Total
Income from Farming. Incomes are expected to have fallen for all farm types
except dairy and specialist poultry.
Since 1995 food prices have risen by 11% while prices of all items have risen
by 25%.
The Farmers’ share of a basket of food staples is estimated to have fallen by
25% between 1988 and 2004.
After a period of relative stability the value of net worth, in real terms, and total
assets has begun to fall. At current prices, the value of total assets fell in 2004
by 0.9% (3.6% in real terms) to £113 billion while total liabilities increased by
5.5% (2.6% in real terms) to £10 billion. Net worth consequently fell by 1.5%
(4.2% in real terms) to £102 billion. The value of fixed assets fell by 2.2% to
£102 billion; of this, the value of land and buildings, which form the greatest
proportion of the total value of assets, fell by 2.4%. The value of current assets
rose by 14% to £10 billion. Long and medium-term liabilities rose by 4.5% to
£4.9 billion and short-term liabilities rose by 6.4% to £5.4 billion. Bank
overdrafts (short-term loans) fell by 1.1% while trade credit increased by 17%.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 54 of 174
8 000
25 000
6 000
20 000
15 000
4 000
10 000
2 000
5 000
0
1970
Total Income from farming per full-time
person equivalent (£ per head)
Total income from farming (£ million)
UK income trends in real terms at 2004 prices:
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Total Income from Farming (£ million)
Total Income from Farming per full-time person equivalent (£ per head)
Source: Defra Statistics
Profitability for different types of farm in 2004/05
Average net farm income for all types of farm in the UK is expected to fall by
29% to £17,000 in 2004/05. Cash income is expected to decrease by 5%.
Incomes on cereal and general cropping farms are forecast to be considerably
lower for 2004/05 compared to 2003/04. This is due to lower commodity
prices from the 2004 harvest, particularly cereals and potatoes, as well as
increases in key inputs such as fuel, fertiliser and agrochemicals. Revenue
from arable area payments is also expected to have fallen in 2004/05.
Incomes on pig farms are forecast to decrease due to a slightly lower pig meat
price over the twelve months and higher costs. Specialist poultry incomes
however are expected to rise, largely due to the increased value of eggs.
Incomes for dairy farms are expected to remain broadly similar or increase
slightly compared to last year. Output on dairy farms will be bolstered by the
introduction of the dairy premium in 2004, although this is partially offset by
higher costs.
The decreases in net farm income and cash income for cattle and sheep farms
between 2003/04 and 2004/05 are mainly due to a small fall in livestock output
combined with a similar increase in costs. Output has fallen due to lower
prices for some classes of cattle and sheep whilst inputs such as fuel, fertiliser
and depreciation have increased.
3.1
East of England Agricultural Financial Performance
Primary agriculture in the East of England provides an output in excess of £2
billion. The rural tourism sector accounts for a further £3.4 billion. If the
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 55 of 174
ancillary industries are included, agriculture provides employment for 12% of
the region’s working population.
Gross output from agriculture within the East of England region represents
14% of the total UK output, and 18% of the total England output.
Primary agriculture contributes 2.1% to the regional Gross Domestic Product
(GDP). This percentage is higher than the English average of 1.8%. Its
importance is further realised as, after agriculture and its ancillary industries are
taken into account, it represents 4.2% of the regional GDP. In rural areas
agriculture makes a far more significant contribution to the GDP. It is
estimated that agriculture contributes up to 20% of the GDP in rural areas in the
more remote parts of the region, particularly the northern areas of Norfolk.
Norfolk and Suffolk have the highest reliance on agricultural income with
figures of 5.7% and 3.7% respectively.
In 2003, a series of unusual and concurrent market and weather conditions
prevailed across the world. In North Europe, the weather limited the
production of most crop and livestock commodities and prices increased. At
the farm level, the price increases exceeded the reduction in the tonnage of crop
and livestock sales and a single year recovery in net farm income resulted.
Market prices in 2004 slipped back and the long-term cost-price squeeze on
commodity prices continued. Greater annual variations in farm performance
are likely in future years due to the greater price volatility that is likely to occur
following the move towards free market conditions.
3.2
Future Prospects for farming
The future business prospects for farming will reflect the interaction of the key
drivers (both long-term and short term) which have shaped the present position.
The chart below shows some stylised projections of underlying trends. These
types of projection have very broad margins of uncertainty and also agriculture
is an industry where specific events, such as disease outbreak or poor weather,
can shift incomes from the underlying trend in individual years.
The recovery projected for 2005 and 2006 is based on the expectation that
energy prices, though still relatively high, will fall below their peak in 2004.
The projections also assume a recovery from the poor quality of the harvest in
2004. A slight downward trend in the baseline projection thereafter is
influenced by an expectation of lower prices. The projections take account of
de-coupling, modulation and Rural Development Programmes, environmental
regulations, the single payment scheme and cross-compliance. The baseline
projection in the chart assumes an exchange rate of 67 pence per euro.
Projections are also provided to illustrate the effects of further movements in
the exchange rate. The exchange rate scenarios shown illustrate the effects of a
5% weakening of the pound against the euro, which approximates to the
favourable 2003 rate, and a 10% strengthening, which approximates to the high
exchange rate of 2000.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 56 of 174
Another key driver of farming incomes is productivity. The high productivity
scenario within this analysis has been chosen to broadly match the growth rate
seen for the leading group of Member States of the European Union (France,
Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium). This will be a challenging path for
agriculture in the United Kingdom to follow, but if achieved would give a
further rise in income per head of around 20% relative to the baseline position.
UK Total Income from Farming in real terms at 2004 prices per full-time person
equivalent, up to 2009:
£ thousand
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
Actuals to 2004 (prov)
10.0
Baseline projection
£ weakens by 5% against euro
5.0
£ strengthens by 10% against euro
Assuming high productivity gains
0.0
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
Source: Defra Statistics
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 57 of 174
4.
EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE
Agriculture’s share of the workforce in the United Kingdom is 1.8%, however
the agri-food sector as a whole provides over 3.8 million jobs that equates to
just under 15% of the total workforce.
Since the 1980s the proportion of part-time workers has risen from about 25%
to 50% of the total.
Average Employee Numbers in Agriculture in the UK 1990-2004:
350
300
Numbers (thousands)
250
200
All
Male
Female
150
100
50
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source – Office for National Statistics
This data illustrates the general decline in employment within agriculture, a
26% drop and 83,000 people less than in 1990.
Seasonal employment is highest in rural areas which have a high demand for a
workforce at peak times of the year such as agricultural harvest. Relatively
high concentrations of self employed are within the agricultural sector. Many
full time farmers are turning towards part time employment as they look for
other sources of income off the farm.
29% of holders in the United Kingdom were aged 65 years or older in 2003, up
from 25% in 2000, while the number of holders younger than 35 years old fell
from 5.2% in 2000 to 3.4% in 2003.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 58 of 174
Age of holders in the UK:
Source: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/
Statistics indicate that those employed within agriculture are generally older
than those within other occupational sectors. 49% of the population employed
in the agriculture, fishing and forestry sector are 45 years of age or above
compared with 32% for all other occupations in the region. Fewer job
opportunities have existed for young people in recent years and the industry is
seen as less attractive in terms of sociable working hours, this suggests that the
existing workforce is not being replaced. The statistics point to an increase in
the ageing population in the rural parts of the region and a further out-migration
of the younger workforce.
Farm Employment within North Norfolk 1990 & 2004:
Farmers ( & Directors, Partners, Spouses) full time
Farmers ( & Directors, Partners, Spouses) part time
Farmers ( & Directors, Partners, Spouses) full & part time
Managers - full time
Managers - part time
Managers - full & part time
Employees (male) - full time
Employees (male) - part time
Employees (female) - full time
Employees (female) - part time
Casual labour
Total labour
(Source: DEFRA Census data)
1990
2004
No. of
Holdings
No. of
Holdings
1990
2004
Number
Number
343
455
576
815
711
919
54
309
97
29
85
113
757
67
36
103
154
63
18
47
79
832
1,166
1,270
68
1,086
138
60
253
1,873
4,644
110
67
177
384
99
33
90
215
2,267
From the data in the above table it is apparent that in North Norfolk the total labour
employed on farms between 1990 and 2003 has fallen from 4,644 to 2183, a drop of
53%. This is well above the national levels and is largely due to the predominance of
arable farms in the area which have rationalised their workforce to a greater extent
than livestock orientated farms.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 59 of 174
There has also been a decrease in the number of full time and part time employees
(both male and female) and an 89% drop in casual labour numbers.
“The Norfolk economy still lags behind that of the rest of England. The aim of
the Shaping the Future Strategy is to narrow the gap and improve Norfolk’s
relative competitiveness. It is the businesses of Norfolk that generates jobs and
creates wealth. The number of people in Norfolk aged 16-74 employed in
Agriculture, hunting and forestry is 13,664. The agricultural sector is
recognised as an important traditional sector for North Norfolk in terms of the
number of businesses and employees (5.66% of all people aged 16-74 in North
Norfolk work in the agricultural industry). This compares with an England
and Wales average of 1.52%” (Economic Development Strategy to 2007 - North Norfolk District
Council)
The agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors represent 2.5% of the working
population in the East of England Region. In England this figure is 1.8%. In
the remote rural areas of the region, such as the district of North Norfolk,
agriculture, forestry and fishing account for 8.3% of the total employment.
This figure is representative of other remote rural areas.
Within the agriculture, fishing and forestry sectors, men predominate as
employees. There are fewer full time employees in the more rural counties of
Norfolk and Suffolk; however, these counties have a higher level of self
employment.
Norfolk and Suffolk have the greatest concentration of low earners, and in
these two counties, 36% of full time employees earn less than £250 per week.
This equates to just over 60% of the national average wage. This pattern of
wages reflects the low economic activities taking place in the northern parts of
the region.
4.1
Skills Levels
In 2000, 22% of holder managers in the UK possessed either basic training or
full agricultural training; the majority had practical experience only. The
proportion of holder managers with some agricultural training increases with
farm size; a greater proportion of small holdings were run by holder managers
with only practical experience
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 60 of 174
Agricultural training of holder managers in the UK, 2000:
Source: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/
Agriculture as a sector is becoming more market orientated. Managers and
administrators will need to acquire the skills to take advantage of new
opportunities as they arise. Agriculture is no longer a production led sector.
Managers will need to be able to make the necessary changes to meet new
market demands.
People and Training
Overall, the skill level required among the workforce is increasing, particularly
in relation to machine-intensive agriculture, which is increasingly requiring
technician-level skills and flexibility to deal with more complex equipment.
The Farmer’s Voice Survey (2004) found the following with regards to the
farming family taking on the business
Question: Do you expect a member of your family to take on the business after
you?
Family to take on the farm business
Unlikely/Definitley
not
47%
36%
Non Organic
32%
Possibly
43%
Definitely/Very
likely
Any Organic
18%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percentage of respondents
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 61 of 174
Approximately only a fifth (18%) of respondents farming non-organically
indicated that they expected a member of their family to take on their farm
business after them. Therefore more than 80% are unsure or definitely think
that their business will not be taken on by the next generation.
Within the Farmer Survey the respondents were asked about their future
attitude to farming and over half of them were worried about their business’s
future and recognised a need to change their farming practices.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 62 of 174
5.
DRIVERS OF CHANGE WITHIN AGRICULTURE
5.1
Major Drivers of Change
Legislation/Driver of
Agricultural Change
CAP Reform –
Single Payment
Scheme (SPS)
Sugar Beet Regime
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Details
Likely Impact?
Payments are now decoupled from
production, so the amount of subsidy
received is no longer conditional on the
area of crops produced or the number of
stock held on the farm.
The value of the farmer’s entitlement
will reflect the value of claims made by
the farmer in 2000- 02 (the historical
element) and the regional flat rate.
To qualify for the SPS payment the
relevant proportion of the “arable land”
(8%) must be set aside and the rules of
Cross compliance must be adhered.
More farmers will now have a set
aside requirement, although the total
amount of set aside with the UK
will not increase.
Non-agricultural uses – activities
with greater restriction permitted for
up to 28 days.
Cross compliance – three sets of
requirements – cross compliance
applies on a whole farm basis
As special entitlements are required
to receive SPS for Horticultural
crops, this sector seems to be
pseudo-decoupled.
We estimate that the agreement will
have the effect of reducing the
labour
requirement
for
UK
agricultural production on farms by
some 3-7 %. This will be in
addition to a continuing declining
trend in employment in farming. In
addition there may be some saving
in labour from the simplification of
the subsidy schemes. There is also
likely to be some reduction in
employment in the industries
supplying agriculture and those
which are dependent on its output.
It is difficult to estimate the impact
on these sectors but it is likely to be
relatively small (about 1-2% of
employment in these sectors). On
the other hand, because the industry
is brought closer to the needs of the
market there may be increased
opportunities for employment in
higher value added or other land
based enterprises.
The European’s Commission’s White Negative impact on UK agriculture
Paper of July 2004 sets out plans to and the environment. UK sugar
Page 63 of 174
reform the European sugar regime. The
Commission is proposing a substantial
two-step price cut coupled with a
generous restructuring fund lasting four
years.
Production of the English sugar beet
crops remains concentrated in Eastern
England. Norfolk has the largest area of
sugar beet accounting for 30% of the
national crop area. The current sugar
regime ends on 30 June 2006. There is
pressure for the new regime to
encourage and enable change in the
sugar sector.
quota cuts and/or price cuts will cut
back sugar beet production and lead
to significant reductions in the farm
income and a reduction in
biodiversity. Most farms will have
to cut back on production and a
price cut will force the least
profitable growers to exit the
industry.
The profitability of
alternative land uses will determine
the extent of a cut back in sugar beet
production.
In the loner run, when farms can
adjust more fully, production is
likely to cease if the enterprise does
not generate a positive net margin.
Impacts of replacement by winter
cereals or break crops.
At some future date sugar beet may
be used for bio-ethanol production,
however the uptake of this will
depend on the contract prices being
offered.
IPPC only applies to the larger
installations that have more than
40,000 broiler bird places, 2,000
fattening pigs or 750 sows. It
already applies to all new intensive
livestock enterprises.
All other
producers with existing installations
that exceed the threshold will be
affected after the end of 2006.
Installations which fall within the
scope of IPPC will have to apply for
a permit to operate.
Planning authorities have an
obligation to include policies within
their structure and local plans which
aim to conserve and enhance the
special scenic qualities of AONB’s.
IPPC
Integrated Pollution Prevention Control
(IPPC) is a major new piece of
environmental legislation that will have
an important impact on the UK intensive
livestock industry (Poultry & pigs). It
aims to control environmental effects so
that emissions to air, water and land are
prevented or reduced as is appropriate.
AONB
In 1968 an area of approximately 450
square kilometres of the Norfolk Coast
was designated as an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. AONB’s
are designated under the National Parks
and Access to the Countryside Act
(1949) and they represent the finest
examples of countryside in England and
Wales. Designation seeks to protect and
enhance
natural
beauty
whilst
recognising the needs of the local
community.
SSSIs are the country’s very best Must
give
English
nature
wildlife and geological sites. SSSIs notification of any listed operations
support plants and animals which find it taking place.
SSSIs must be
SSSI
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 64 of 174
difficult to survive in the wider
countryside. Notification for a SSSI
gives legal protection to the best sites for
geology in England. Covers 68% of the
North Norfolk Coast.
Rural White Paper
Town and Country
Planning (General
Permitted
Development)
Order 1995
Town and Planning
(Environmental
Impact Assessment)
Regulations 1999
Animal Health Act
1981
Animal Health Act
2002.
Welfare of Farmed
Animals
Regulations 2000
Horse Passport
Regulations 2003
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
managed appropriately to conserve
the special wildlife and geological
features of SSSIs.
Those convicted of carrying out
work without permission, or
damaging a SSSI, may be fined up
to £20,000 by a magistrate’s court
or an unlimited amount by a Crown
Court.
The thinking and conclusions from
the review will feed into a refreshed
rural strategy that Defra is currently
preparing. This will set out the key
priorities for the Government’s rural
affairs agenda over the next few
years, and an action plan for
achieving them.
The Government’s Rural White Paper
Our Countryside: The Future, A Fair
Deal for Rural England was published in
November 2000. It set out all the
different aspects that the Government
was tackling in rural areas. However,
due to Foot and Mouth Disease hitting
the nation in 2001, resources were
redirected from implanting the rural
white paper to tackling the aftermath of
foot and mouth. The rural white paper is
now under review.
This order details the types of Would increase expense of planning
development that can be undertaken on applications and lengthen time
agricultural land without planning scales if this policy ceased
permission.
These regulations include explanations
of the type of installations for which an
environmental impact assessment is
required.
Animal Health Act and the Orders made
under it, aim to control the spread of
diseases and to eventually eradicate
them. This is done by controlling the
movements of animals and isolating
areas where disease is confirmed. The
Act has strict controls on the import of
animals, which include import licenses
and strict quarantine controls.
These regulations include details of the
welfare requirements for farming
poultry.
The government announced on 14th
February 2002, all horses and ponies
will need to have a passport identifying
the animal.
Additional expense and time delays
Additional
paperwork
and
administration and some movement
restrictions
Increased costs of production
1st March 2005 – Horse Passport
Regulations in England and Wales.
It is now an offence for an owner to:
• Export a horse
• Use a horse for the purposes
of competitions
• Move a horse to the
premises of a new keeper
Page 65 of 174
•
•
•
Present for slaughter for
human consumption
Sell a horse
Use a horse for breeding
purposes
If the horse is not accompanied by a
valid passport.
The Pigs (Records,
Identification and
Movement) Order
2003
Water Framework
Directive
Agricultural Waste
The Countryside
and Rights of Way
Act 2000 (CRoW
Act)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
This order was introduced to improve The new rules that the order
the identification of older pigs and pigs introduced require pig farmers to
moving to slaughter.
put a slap mark on the shoulder area
of each pig under one year old that
is moving direct to slaughter and
each pig over one year old that is
moving to any destination.
This is a vital piece of European There will be many significant
Legislation which is designed to scientific,
technical,
planning,
integrate the way water is managed administrative
and
economic
across Europe. Using the directive, implications. Implementation of the
every member state should make the Directive will take place in a series
same plans to protect and improve of planning cycles.
rivers, lakes and coastal waters. The
main aims are to improve water quality,
prevent flooding and stop the
deterioration of wetlands and improve
aquatic habitats for wildlife. The UK,
along with all other EU member states,
must implement the Water Frameworks
Directive.
The government has recently published a The new controls, expected to take
consultation paper, outlining new place in June 2005, will involve big
proposals on how it intends to bring changes in waste management
controls for agricultural waste into line practices on farms, with the
with the European waste Framework proposals including a ban on
Directive, Landfill Directive and the burying waste without a landfill
hazardous Waste Directive requirements. permit.
Anyone who deposits, recovers or
disposes of controlled waste must
do so either:
Within the conditions of a waste
management licence, or
Within the conditions of an
exemption from licensing.
The CRoW Act comprises Five Parts The right-to-roam will be in
and Sixteen Schedules. It aims to
operation across all of England’s
• Make new provision for public open country and registered
common land from Oct 31 2005.
access to the countryside
• Amend the new law relating to The CRoW Act has reaffirmed the
importance
of
the
AONB
public rights of way
Page 66 of 174
•
•
Enable traffic regulation orders
to be made for the purpose of
conserving an area’s natural
beauty
Amend the law relating to nature
conservation and the protection
of wildlife
designation as a method of
protecting the landscapes of national
importance, and places a duty on
local authorities to act jointly to
prepare and publish an AONB
management plan.
Farmers and landowners may be
affected by open access to the
countryside, in terms of increased
visitor numbers.
The two major drivers of change that will shape the future face of agriculture in
the North Norfolk area are the recently introduced Single Payment Scheme and
the far reaching changes to the future sugar beet regime. It is therefore felt that
these aspects need to be further examined.
5.2
CAP Reforms and the Single Payment Scheme
Farm Ministers of the EU Member States made an agreement on Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform in June 2003. The majority of the changes
came into effect on the 1st January 2005. The most significant change is the
decoupling of support. This means that farm support in the future will not be
linked to what is being produced on the farm during the year. i.e. to the crops
being grown or the numbers of livestock kept. The aim of the reform was to
remove the incentive to maximise production and so reduce environmental
damage. The agreement also makes receipt of subsidy dependent on meeting
certain EU environmental, food safety, plant and animal health and animal
welfare standards as well as maintaining the land in good agricultural and
environmental condition (Cross Compliance).
In addition, subsidy will be diverted to wider rural development and
environmental initiatives, which farmers can undertake. The CAP reform
agreement allowed Member States to implement these changes differently in
separate regions. The UK has taken up this option to enable all four agriculture
departments (in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) to take the
approach that best suits their needs and meets their priorities.
On 12th February 2004, the Secretary of State announced that the payments in
England would be regional and flat rate based and that this would be phased in
from 2005 to 2012, with the flat rate element of the entitlement starting at 10%
and increasing to 100% by 2012. To ease the transition to flat rate payments,
farmers would receive an element of the entitlement based on their individual
average historic receipts in the reference period 2000 to 2002. On 22nd April
2004, further clarification was announced. Three distinct regions will be
created within England – land within the moorland line and within the upland
Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs), other upland SDAs and land outside
the SDAs. Payments for the non-moorland SDA will be approximately 55% of
that in lowland and those in moorland about 14%. The North Norfolk area falls
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 67 of 174
within land outside the SDA and will therefore receive the full amounts of their
entitlements.
The Single Payment Scheme (SPS) replaces 10 main schemes. An application
form will still need to be completed each year (usually by 15th May) in order to
receive the payment. The single payment (SP) has a number of conditions
attached that must be met in order to receive the full payment, known as cross
compliance conditions. The SP will also be subject to deductions to fund the
national reserve, EU and national modulation (to fund rural development
measures) and, eventually, financial discipline (to ensure that the overall EU
budget is not breached).
Other important points of the SPS include:
•
The payments are calculated in euros, therefore the £:euro exchange rate
remains important.
•
From 2006 the entitlements to the SP will be tradable.
•
Most farmland is “eligible”, comprising of arable land and permanent
pasture but excluding “permanent crops” (e.g. orchards, and vineyards),
woodland and land in non-agricultural use. The land has to be at the
farmer’s disposal for at least 10 months of the year.
•
The set-aside rate in English lowland will be 8%, and 1.3% in nonmoorland SDA.
•
A dairy premium will be paid to milk producers as compensation for price
cuts. This will be paid based on the amount of milk quota held on 31st
March 2005, and converted into per hectare SP entitlements.
•
A number of deductions will be made to the payments, most of which
increase over time. Up to 3% will be deducted for the National Reserve, to
provide payments for special cases. There will be modulation to fund EUwide Rural Development projects, this starts at 3% in 2005, increasing to
5% from 2007. There will also be member state modulation, in England
this will be 2% in 2005 and 6% in 2006. In 2007 there will also be a
deduction for “EU Financial discipline” to keep spending within the budget
thresholds. By 2010 the total of these deductions could be 25% or even
more.
The gradual change to a flat-rate payment will create winners and losers. By
2012 a farm in 100% combinable crops will lose around £90/ha (from
approximately £240/ha to £150/ha). Growers of previously unsupported crops
such as potatoes and soft fruit will gain the whole of the payment, though at the
cost of having to incur set-aside and cross-compliance rules. Dairy farmers
with high milk yields and the higher their stocking rates the more they will
lose, especially if they have a flying herd, i.e. no followers. A low-yielding,
extensively stocked dairy farm with many followers may be payment neutral.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 68 of 174
Intensive beef producers could lose considerably. A beef suckler herd with a
low stocking rate should also be payment neutral. However lowland sheep
would have to be stocked at a very high rate to lose from the new system and
most should gain.
5.3
Implications for Production
The following is taken from a report for DEFRA by GFA-RACE Partners
Limited, in association with IEEP and is based upon previous research
commissioned by DEFRA on likely decoupling impacts. It relates specifically
to England, not to the UK as a whole.
Likely impacts include:Reduction in production in cereals, beef and sheep with associated price
increases.
Improvement in incomes in most sectors but not dairy.
Pressure to cut variable and fixed costs.
Cut in employed on-farm labour.
Arable sector – expansion of efficient farms, wider use of alternative farming
arrangements. Switch from break crops to cereals and removal of more land
from arable cropping to permanent or temporary fallow.
Livestock sector – greater reduction in beef production. Move away from
suckler cows to breeding ewes (hill/upland areas) and arable cropping where
possible/profitable (lowland areas). Extensification of production through
reduction in stock numbers (less so for small farms).
Dairy sector – decoupling likely to contribute to restructuring – increase in herd
size and yield in more productive areas and least competitive farms leaving the
sector.
More flexibility of land use between arable crops and grass.
Some land to fall out of agricultural production and be managed to minimum
standards.
More land to be put into agri-environment and other schemes.
Reduced flexibility to move into or expand unsupported crops (fruit,
vegetables, potatoes).
Slow increase in non-food crops at the expense of permanent or rotational set
aside managed for environmental benefit.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 69 of 174
Cross compliance might suggest a slightly higher standard of environmental
care although “we do not expect additional compliance costs for businesses”.
5.4
Rural development measures
More farms seem likely to benefit from enhanced funding for the new agrienvironment schemes and existing rural development schemes but it seems
unlikely that other new measures will be introduced. The additional funding
will lead to increased agri-environment scheme take-up and support further
diversification.
5.5
General
It is estimated that the Reform will result in an overall increase in UK farm
incomes of up to £280million per year.
5.6
•
Farm incomes higher on average, except for the dairy sector.
•
Significant variations at individual farm level.
•
Reduction in labour requirement for UK production by 3-7%.
•
Farmers will be slow to adapt systems of production due to uncertainty.
•
Business planning difficult due to a number of elements left for
subsequent EU-level decisions.
How will farm businesses respond to the changes
Despite the enormity of the changes made in the gross margins, net margins or
profits of the major enterprises affected, the impact on production (areas
planted and number of livestock reared) is likely to be small in 2005. They will
almost certainly be greater in subsequent years.
There are a number of reasons for this:
•
The changes will take time to register for many producers, the instinct will
be to wait and see.
•
Many businesses will continue to sow and rear as in the past because “it is
what they do”.
•
There will be continuing uncertainty about many of the details of the new
regime, therefore do not want to change as this may risk losing some of
the Single Farm Payment.
•
There are penalties/restrictions on making some changes that might
otherwise be contemplated, e.g. growing more potatoes. Additionally new
enterprises often mean more capital investment, more know-how, risk of
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 70 of 174
overproduction and hence reduced prices.
diversifications, as well as farm enterprises.
This holds true for many
However an increasing number of farmers, particularly those who are older,
with no obvious successors, or others simply tired of the work involved, the
uncertainties and the increasing paperwork and red-tape, will no doubt opt for a
simple system of farming, with very low inputs and making sure that they abide
by the cross-compliance rules.
The future market prices will also dictate the pace of change as lower prices
will accelerate the ‘evolution’.
More farmers are expected to introduce or expand existing diversification
enterprises to ‘supplement’ farm incomes and make up shortfalls. In some
cases the diversification may entirely replace farm enterprises. However for
many this is easier said than done.
Large changes in the beef sector are predicted as the profitability in the past has
been dependant on the subsidies which from now on will be decoupled from
production. For most beef enterprise, even the most efficient, they will find it
difficult to make a positive net margin without the subsidies. Of course the SP
can still be used to subsidise production. However the significant difference is
that the payments will continue even if production ceases (as long as crosscompliance rules are met). Production looks bound to fall substantially as time
goes on.
The implementation of CAP reform is a challenge and an opportunity for
everyone involved with farming. In responding to CAP reform, some farmers
may expand their businesses, others will decide to move into other activities on
the farm, taking advantage of the new flexibility provided by the SPS, and
some may see this as an opportunity to take a step back from farming, perhaps
passing their farm on to the next generation.
2005/06 is going to be a watershed year for the farming industry. Following
CAP reform, farmers will have the opportunity to respond to market demands
without being tied to commodity-linked support. These changes will provide
opportunities for all farmers. This may be through development of existing
production systems, new market opportunities or participation in the new agrienvironment schemes, or perhaps a combination of these. The changes,
however, will present a challenge for many farmers.
The impact of CAP reform will be so significant that it is highly unlikely that
‘doing nothing’ will be a sensible or prudent decision.
The current policy framework, including the recently published Government
Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, places considerable emphasis on
diversification as an element in rural and agricultural recovery. The number of
diversified businesses is steadily rising. In the light of CAP reform proposals
to de-couple support payments from production, it is logical to assume that the
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 71 of 174
level of diversification will continue to rise. Farm diversification is no longer
merely a modest supplementary add-on to the core farm business.
5.7
Effects of CAP Reform in North Norfolk
Over the next few years the changes will be slow due to ‘management inertia’.
However some of the current trends identified in the previous Sections will
continue and some will be accelerated. The likely effect of the CAP reform in
North Norfolk will be:
The overall reduction in production of cereals, beef and sheep may result in
price increases in the market place. This should result in the improvement in
incomes in most sectors but not dairy.
Continued pressure to cut variable and fixed costs and improve economic
efficiency.
Cereals will only be grown where it is efficient to do so. There will also be an
increase in the use of alternative farming arrangements. Switch from break
crops to cereals and removal of more land from arable cropping to permanent
or temporary fallow. There will be more flexibility of land use between arable
crops and grass.
Further uptake of environmental schemes and woodland, also some additional
land will be taken out of agricultural production and managed to the minimum
requirements of Cross Compliance. Therefore more land will be taken ‘out’ of
agriculture.
With the decoupling of subsidies from specific crops (mainly cereals) the area
of vegetable and salad crops may increase slightly. However this will only
apply to a very small number of holdings.
Large changes in the beef sector are predicted as the profitability in the past has
been dependant on the subsidies. Production looks bound to fall substantially
as time goes on. Livestock producers will move towards more extensive
production through reduction in stock numbers (less so for small farms), and
the least efficient will leave the industry.
There will be further rationalisation of the dairy sector with the continued trend
of falling herd numbers, increase in herd size and yield for the more efficient
producers and the least competitive farms leaving the sector.
Continue the trend of reduction in full and part time employees (shrinking
labour force). Increase in part time farmers.
More farmers are expected to introduce or expand existing diversification
enterprises to ‘supplement’ their farm incomes and make up profit shortfalls.
In some cases the diversification may entirely replace farm enterprises.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 72 of 174
5.8
Future Sugar Beet Regime
Sugar beet growing was introduced as a UK crop in order to break dependence
on sugar cane from the colonies, the sole source of sugar at the time, which
made it a rare and precious commodity. The crop has gradually spread
throughout Europe. From the 1920s on, with the development of maritime
transport, sugar beet production faced competition from cane sugar and has
survived since then largely as the result of tariff protection.
5.9
How the current sugar regime works
The essential features of the current sugar regime are support prices (a
minimum price to growers of sugar beet, and a guaranteed price to support the
market), production quotas to limit over-production, tariffs and quotas on
imports from third countries, and subsidies to export surplus production out of
the EU.
Sugar quotas
There are two types of quota: A-quota (initially determined in accordance with
domestic consumption) and B-quota (additional amount to fulfil export
potential). Production quotas were set to distribute production of sugar
amongst the Member States and to keep overall production within certain
limits. They represent the maximum quantity of sugar eligible for price
support. The total quota for the EU-25 is 17.4 million tonnes (A-quota: 82 %;
B-quota: 18 %); Member States may produce more but that over-quota
production (‘C sugar’) has to be sold outside the EU without subsidy.
Support prices
The minimum price for sugar beet is the minimum price at which sugar
manufacturers are required to buy beet from growers for the production of
quota sugar. It is currently €46.72 per tonne for beet used to produce A-quota
sugar and €32.42 per tonne for beet used to produce B-quota sugar.
‘Intervention’ (market support) prices are €631.9 per tonne for white and
€523.7 per tonne for raw sugar. Current prices are unchanged since 1993/94.
Sugar imports
The EU has several international trade agreements with third countries and
groups of third countries, allowing preferential access (i.e. at low or zero tariffs
for quantities subject to quotas) to the high-priced EU sugar market. These are
longstanding and enshrined in multi-lateral trade agreements.
5.10
Reasons to reform the sugar regime
The sugar sector maintains artificially high prices
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 73 of 174
Current EU price levels are three times higher than world market prices –
this has been a constant point of criticism inside and outside the EU. The
restructuring of the sugar industry is unavoidable: sugar must be brought in
line with today’s economic realities.
The EU lost a World Trade Organisation (WTO) sugar ‘panel’
The recent ruling of the WTO Appellate Body (‘panel’) in a case brought
by Australia, Brazil and Thailand against aspects of the EU sugar regime
obliges the EU to alter the regime. The ruling found that ‘C sugar’ exports
benefit from export subsidies by being cross-subsidised with revenues from
production under A and B quotas. Secondly, the WTO ruled that the EU
exceeds its export subsidy commitments due to its subsidised export of
sugar equivalent to imports from the Africa Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
countries and India. Measures must be taken to comply with the ruling.
The current sugar regime expires on the 30th June 2006
Without a new regime all price provisions, all quota arrangements and the
public storage (‘intervention’) system would cease to apply; this could lead
to serious market disturbances and threaten the organised restructuring of
the European sugar sector.
Prolongation of the current system is not an option
The EU has to adapt to its international obligations. The status quo is
unsustainable - it would lead to a scenario dominated by attrition:
Countries benefiting from the EU’s Everything But Arms (EBA) agreement
with Least Developed Countries (LDCs), allowing free access to the EU
sugar market, could send all their production (around 3.5 million tonnes) to
the EU.
EU production quotas would then have to be reduced automatically by the
imported quantities in order to achieve market balance.
The sugar industry, even in the most competitive EU regions, would be
damaged. Non-competitive regions will suffer gradual decline without the
incentive to seek economic alternatives.
At least 60 factories would close and 5,000 agricultural jobs, 25,000 jobs in
industry and 50,000 indirect jobs would be lost within the EU.
5.11
Objectives of the reform
The main objectives are to:
•
guarantee a regular supply of sugar while protecting the European market
from extreme price fluctuations;
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 74 of 174
•
make the sugar sector more competitive, able to withstand international
competition;
•
move towards more market orientation while restructuring the sector;
•
provide a fair standard of living for farmers and maintain rural
communities;
•
maintain preferential access for ACP and LDC producers to the high value
EU market;
•
simplify the regime and make it more transparent;
•
limit budget costs.
Reaching these objectives would provide the sector with a long-term policy
framework.
5.12
Key elements of the reform
The EU Commission has studied the sugar market in detail and the proposal
has been made after discussion with stakeholders in the sector. Its impact
assessments have shown clearly that the maintenance of the Status quo is
unsustainable. Without reform quotas would have to be drastically reduced
across the board, hitting the most competitive producers hardest and leading to
an attrition scenario.
The reform proposal fixes the economic and legal framework for the European
sugar sector until 2014/2015 without foreseeing a review clause. The
Commission is proposing a substantial two-step price cut coupled with a
generous restructuring fund lasting four years. The restructuring fund has three
main objectives: firstly to provide incentives to encourage less competitive
producers to leave the industry, secondly to provide money to cope with the
social and environmental impacts of factory closure (financing of social plans
or redeployment programs and of measures to put the site back into good
environmental condition) and thirdly to provide funds for the most affected
regions to develop new business in coherence with EU structural and rural
development funds.
The European Commission on 22nd June 2005 proposed the following farreaching reforms to the Common Market Organisation for sugar. The
proposals will be ratified in November 2005 for implementation 2006 onwards.
The main elements are:
1. Significant price reduction
A 39% cut in sugar support prices over two years beginning in 2006/07.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 75 of 174
To be more competitive and market-oriented the reform introduces price
cuts. Those who cannot compete within the new framework will be given
incentives to give up their quotas. Thus:
prices should revert to their true role as the determining factor in the
allocation of resources and investment decisions;
EU-funded buying into stores (‘intervention’) will be abolished and the
intervention price replaced by a ‘reference’ price;
the support price for white sugar will be cut in stages;
minimum prices for beet will be cut by a corresponding amount;
the new price system will remain for a period so as to provide stability.
2. Partial compensation for farmers
Direct payments for sugar beet growers will be paid (covering 60% of the
revenue loss from the price cuts). Payments are calculated in the same way
for all 25 Member States. Direct payments will be decoupled and become
part of the Single Payment Scheme; payment is therefore conditional on the
fulfilment of ‘Cross Compliance’.
3. Quota reduction
There will be no compulsory quota cuts in an initial phase to ensure
competitive producers will not be weakened. A voluntary restructuring
scheme lasting 4 years for EU sugar factories, and isoglucose and inulin
syrup producers will be introduced. It will consist of a high digressive
payment to encourage factory closure and the renunciation of quota as well
as to cope with the social and environmental impact of the restructuring
process. The restructuring fund will offer a clear incentive to leave sugar
production for those whose production is not viable. Restructuring funds
could be used in three ways:
•
Industry: contributing to costs of factory closing/reconversion of sites
•
Farmers: compensating for full price cuts in year one
•
Most affected regions: financing of diversification measures
The payment will be €730 per tonne in year one, falling to €625 in year
two, €520 in year three and €420 in the final year. The fund would be
financed via a digressive levy on holders of quota, lasting the first three
years. Current quota arrangements will be simplified by merging A and B
quotas into one quota; the quota system will be extended. To maintain
production levels in Member States currently producing C sugar additional
quota will be made available against a one-off payment. Furthermore,
isoglucose quotas will be increased.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 76 of 174
There will also be a top-up payment for beet producers affected by the
closure of factories in the first year for which they have delivery rights.
To maintain a certain production in the current “C” sugar producing
countries (UK is one of them), an additional amount of 1million tonnes will
be made available against a one-off payment corresponding to the amount
of restructuring aid per tonne in the first year.
The sugar quota system will remain in place until 2014/15 with no review
clause.
4. Market Balance
The intervention system will be abolished and the intervention price will be
replaced by a reference price.
Tools to ensure market balance in each marketing year will be retained,
e.g.:
•
Carry forward mechanism: sugar factories may carry forward an
overshoot of quota to the following year.
•
Withdrawal mechanism: the Commission may deal with a market
imbalance by compulsory storage of sugar.
•
Introduction of a private storage system as a safety net, triggered once
the market price falls below the reference price.
5. Enlarging alternative outlets for out of quota sugar
There will be improved incentives for the industrial uses of sugar:
• Biofuel, chemical and pharmaceutical industries will have access to out
of quota sugar which should guarantee them reasonable raw material
prices
• Processing of biofuel from sugar beet will be promoted - sugar beet will
become eligible for energy crop aid to the sum of €45/hectare
(provided under the 2003 CAP reform) and will qualify for set-aside
payments.
• Increase of Isoglucose quota of 300,000 tonnes for the existing
producer companies phased in over three years with an increase of
100,000 tonnes each year.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 77 of 174
6. Budget neutrality
The reform will be budget neutral as the costs of new measures, notably the
compensation of the sugar beet farmers, will be off-set mainly by savings
resulting from a substantial reduction in export subsidies.
5.13
Impact of the reform on EU Member States
The impact of sugar reform varies according to Member States’ possibilities for
sustainable production. Areas with specific advantages, such as Austria,
Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the UK
should be least affected.
Negative impacts can be offset by:
•
•
•
•
•
new outlets for out of quota production (ethanol and industrial use);
refining of cane sugar in sugar beet factories to achieve economies of
scale;
increases in isoglucose quotas;
moving to alternative crops (notably to wheat or maize)
the restructuring fund.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 78 of 174
6.
AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION
6.1
Reasons for Diversification
Rural diversification is not a new concept. Virtually all farm businesses have
been affected by an ongoing decline in agricultural returns. Any business
facing economic change needs to review its position and look for new
solutions.
Alongside seasonal fluctuations within the agricultural sector there has been an
economic trend in recent years that has made it harder for many small farms to
remain viable. Financial performance may only be improved through making
structural changes to these businesses.
Where the existing farm enterprise is no longer able to generate sufficient
income, the only answer sometimes appears to be to diversify and introduce a
new venture. Or a situation may arise where the farmer has identified a new
venture where he feels he could succeed and for which the property and its
location are well suited. It may be that the existing farm is viable within its
present context but that there is a need to increase its income in order to meet
some changing circumstance.
There is also another area of change within the countryside in that there is ever
increasing development in rural districts. Circumstances may change in the
vicinity of the property, due perhaps to a change in either local or national
government policies.
6.2
Opportunities for Diversification
There are numerous opportunities for diversification which depend upon the
farmer’s preference, location, capital available, grant availability etc.
Buildings
Farm buildings represent a valuable asset. Some may be out of use, or
unsuitable for the current farming system. The North Norfolk Farmer Survey
highlighted that 73% of respondents currently have redundant buildings and
94% of these were of traditional construction.
Agricultural Dwellings
Many farms have cottages that were originally erected for the purpose of
housing farm workers. 43% of the farmers within the North Norfolk Farmers
Survey had one or more dwellings on their holdings with agricultural
occupancy conditions. Due to the decline in numbers employed in agriculture,
some of these cottages are no longer utilised by farm workers. There may be
potential for increasing income from renting farm cottages.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 79 of 174
The farmhouse
Farm houses are frequently larger than other country homes, as they were built
to accommodate several generations working together. However, there may
well now be spare space that could be used for bed and breakfast
accommodation.
The situation and condition of farm buildings will have a great bearing upon
the options available for farm diversification.
Land and location
There may be areas of land on the holding that are not that well suited to
agriculture or could be given up without significant loss. Some of this land
could be used as a caravan site for example, or some other non-agricultural
venture. Conservation is becoming an increasing common factor in the
considerations of alternative uses for land.
Location is a fundamental consideration in almost every diversification
scheme. A rural business that succeeds well in one part of the country may
well fail to establish in another.
Land owners need to ask themselves questions such as what sort of area is it?
Is it mainly agricultural or are there other interests there as well? If so, do the
non-farming communities live there and work locally or commute to work
further a field? Is it frequented by visitors and do they come on a daily basis or
for weekends or on holidays? What sort of image does the neighbourhood
have; is it pretty and therefore probably protected countryside, or more
workaday? Has there been much new development? Does this imply a
proactive local planning policy?
There are regional designations that may also have a positive or negative
bearing upon the potential for diversification. For example, where the farm is
in a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), or an Area
of High Landscape Value, there could be greater difficulties in gaining
planning permission or possible DEFRA grant funding.
Human Resources and Finance
Developing and then managing a new venture will demand time and energy,
especially at the beginning. It is important to assess if there is enough labour
readily available to continue with the established farm business at the same
time. There will also be seasonal demands on the business for example
providing holiday accommodation when the cereal harvest is under way.
Offering the same accommodation on an autumn calving dairy farm would
probably be more easily managed.
The demand for extra income on the farm will determine the extent to which
the diversification takes place. The owner has to establish how soon he may be
able to raise capital to fund the diversification. There are a number of grants
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 80 of 174
offered to encourage and facilitate diversification and conservation. However,
there can sometimes be a lengthy process to obtain the grant and this may delay
the diversification further.
Most diversification schemes involve a significant amount of time and money.
There are no definite answers either to the future of various sectors or to the
outlook for new enterprises. The farmer needs to be realistic about the current
farming business performance. Not only must the circumstances be well suited
to the proposed venture, but the individual’s attitude and ability will be a major
factor.
6.3
Types of Diversification
The Main groups of alternative enterprises on farmland:
Tourism and recreation
Tourism
Recreation Enterprises
Adding Value to
conventional products
Animal products
Crop products
Unconventional
agricultural enterprises
Animal products
Organic production
Use of ancillary buildings Woodland products
and resources
Redundant buildings
Wetland
Public Goods
Wildlife
Landscape
Historic sites
Access
Bed and Breakfast
Cottages/chalets
Caravans/camping
Activity holidays
Farm museums
Visitor Centres
Riding
Game Shooting
Other Shooting
Fishing
Farmhouse Catering
Meat (direct sales etc.)
Skins/hides/wool
Dairy
products
(direct
sales/processing)
Milled cereals
PYO and direct sales of
vegetables
Sheep milk
Rare breeds
Fish
Deer and goats
Fuel wood
Craft timber products
Industrial premises
Accommodation
Fish
Game
Environmental Stewardship
Payments
Management agreements
Heritage relief
Access agreements
(Source: Slee, 1989)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 81 of 174
Equestrian tourism has two different meanings – for some it means inbound
visitors attending race meetings, watching major equestrian events or going on
packaged riding holidays. For others it means the activity regularly undertaken
by many riders, travelling to areas away from home to ride their own horses on
bridleways or long distance routes. All of these activities are important aspects
of horse tourism.
Much work is already being done in relation to farm based tourism. A similar
structure needs to be developed for equestrian tourism. This should be carried
out in partnership with other rural based tourism. This emphasis is on activities
that bring tourists into the area.
The following is taken from the DEFRA Consultation document - Strategy for
the Horse Industry in England and Wales:
Action - Encourage a cohesive approach to promoting equestrian tourism through local
authorities, regional tourism councils and national bodies; publish a national register of
riding holidays and equestrian tourism opportunities on the internet; and establish
tourism.
Responsibility - Association representative of professionals in the industry, including
British Horseracing Board, British Horse Society and the Association of British Riding
Schools, working with holiday providers and regional and national tourism bodies.
Priority - Medium-term
Resources - Industry resources and Rural Enterprise Scheme
6.4
Current levels of diversification
Diversification is widely held to offer considerable scope for improving the
economic viability of many farm businesses and in turn reducing their
dependence on the production of primary subsidised agricultural commodities.
Defra’s Farm Business Survey (FBS) (January 2005) estimates that 48% of
“full-time” farms in England in 2003/04 have a diversified business, the
average output from these farms is £19,500. The research also found that
although letting out buildings for non-agricultural use is the dominant
enterprise, 19% of farms have other kinds of diversified activity. There are
also wide variations in the incidence of diversification. The study also states
that “61% of cereal farms have let out buildings for non-agricultural use
(compared with an average of all farm types of 39%) and 22% of horticulture
farms engage in food processing or retailing (compared with an average of all
farm types of 7%)”.
The FBS also states that “the average output from renting out buildings is
£11,400 compared with £31,600 for processing and retailing of farm produce
and £56,700 for other diversified activity”.
The North Norfolk Farmer Survey found that 64% of the farms had some form
of diversification with Farm-based accommodation, leasing of buildings,
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 82 of 174
supply of Agricultural services and farm-based food processing being the major
activities.
Sources of income other than from farming – England Regions 2003/04
No of farm
businesses (full
and part time)
Percentage of
which:
Have diversified
activity
Farmer or spouse
have off farm
employment or
self employment
Where farmer is
sole source of
income for
farmer/spouse
NE &
YH
NW
EM
WM
EE
SE
SW
10,000
6,500
7,000
6,800
8,900
8,700
11,500
37%
37%
58%
42%
54%
68%
42%
19%
26%
17%
20%
29%
24%
29%
32%
27%
19%
25%
18%
16%
24%
(Source: Defra Farm Business Study January 2005)
Compared to other regions in England, farms in the East of England region are
above average in terms of having a diversified activity and off farm
employment, and as a result of this, below average in terms of the farmer being
the main source of income for the holding.
Farms with diversified activity – England Regions 2003/04
NE &
NW
EM
WM
EE
SE
YH
Number of farm
businesses (full and
part time) with
3,700 2,400 4,000 2,900 4,800 5,900
diversified
enterprises
Percentage of which
have:
Let buildings for
83%
62%
94%
89%
80%
86%
non-farming use
Processing/retailing
9%
14%
8%
11%
16%
23%
of farm produce
Tourism
16%
14%
4%
4%
22%
20%
Sport and recreation 10%
7%
5%
5%
6%
Other diversified
10%
4%
7%
enterprises
SW
4,800
68%
16%
22%
9%
11%
(Source: Defra Farm Business Study January 2005)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 83 of 174
Farms in the East of England have the average number of let buildings
compared to other regions. They are above average in terms of diversifying
into processing and retailing and well above average in terms of diversifying
into tourism.
The North Norfolk Farm Survey has confirmed these findings with farm-based
accommodation, supply of farm services, and leasing of buildings being the
most common enterprises.
Types of diversified enterprises, current, future and discontinued within North
Norfolk:
Off-farm non-agricultural business
Leasing of land
Leasing of buildings
Farm-based craft business
Other farm-based leisure business
(eg sports, open farms)
Equine (eg livery, grazing, riding
trail)
Future
Current
Discontinued
Farm-based accommodation (eg
B&B, self catering)
Farm-based food retailing
Farm-based food processing
Agricultural services
Non-food crops
Novel livestock (eg ostriches,
rabbits)
Novel food crops
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
(Source: Acorus North Norfolk Postal Farmer Survey 2005)
Diversified enterprises in the East have one of the highest average output, of
£20,400, second only to the South East. This is largely due to the higher value
of let buildings. There is a wide regional variation in the scale of food
processing/retailing enterprises, possibly reflecting the grouping together of
two potentially different operations.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 84 of 174
Average output of diversified enterprises on farms - England regions 2003/04
NE & NW
EM
WM
EE
SE
SW
YH
Average output of
diversified
enterprises (£/farm)
Let buildings for 7,400
2,800
8,500
5,700
14,400 20,000 9,900
non-farming use
Processing/retailing 16,100 43,400 43,000 17,600 38,000 42,200 10,000
of farm produce
Tourism
4,100
5,800
4,400
9,900
4,500
9,900
6,000
Sport and recreation 5,300
5,500
19,500 10,000 6,600
16,100
Other
diversified 17,100 4,700
21,100 11,400
enterprises
ALL
9,300
10,700 13,800 11,900 20,400 41,900 12,400
DIVERSIFIED
ENTERPRISES
(Source: Defra Farm Business Study January 2005)
The Farmer’s Voice Survey (2004) questioned respondents over
“approximately what proportion of your “farm family” income over the last 12
months has come from each of the following sources?
Non Organic Producers
Main farm business
Diversification
Off-farm income
Any Organic Producers
Main farm business
Diversification
Off-farm income
Mean Score
65.7%
9.7%
22.8%
Mean Score
55.4%
14.8%
29.5%
The main farm business accounted for some 65% of farm income over the last
year among non-organic producers compared to 55% among organic producers.
For the latter, diversification activities accounted for almost 15% of farm
family income and off-farm income for almost 30%.
When the respondents were asked which diversification enterprises they had
operated in the past but discontinued, currently operated or would consider
operating in the future.
One in ten respondents reported a diversified activity that had been
discontinued.
Around one quarter, 28%, of all respondents were considering some diversified
activity in the future – this increased to 36% among organic producers where
the key options being considered included Leasing of Land (13%), leasing of
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 85 of 174
Buildings (11%), Equine Related (10%) and Farm-based Accommodation
(9%).
A study undertaken by the University of Exeter in 2002 for DEFRA found that
larger farms are more likely to have the resources, flexibility, and
entrepreneurship to pursue diversification. Compared to the “all holdings”
averages, diversification is significantly more common on “cereals”, “general
cropping” and “mixed” farms, and notably less common on “dairy” and “cattle
and sheep (LFA)” farms, and “on other types”. These findings are consistent
with the earlier study of farm diversification.
The report also identified a number of important features about farm
diversification. The report summarised the costs and profit structures of farm
diversification which are important in understanding the nature of this form of
farm business activity:
On average, direct costs represent about 43% of total operating costs, and
overhead costs 57%;
However, cost structures vary widely by type of enterprise, with overhead costs
accounting for between 36% and 78% (“trading” and “recreation and leisure”
respectively) of total operating costs;
The average diversified enterprise brings in a net profit per farm of £9,474,
with a range by type of enterprise of between £5,617 (“trading enterprises”)
and £12,456 (“miscellaneous services”);
For all diversified enterprises, the average net profit margin is 27.8%;
Profit margins also vary widely by type of enterprise; they are lowest for
“trading enterprises” (at 18.4%) and highest for “equine enterprises” (at 64%).
Variability from the overall mean by enterprise type is greatest for total
operating costs, particularly direct costs and least for net profits, with
variability in output levels somewhere in between.
A noticeable trend for farm businesses in North Norfolk is to look to diversify
into barn conversions for tourism purposes and, usually self-catering. This is
because NNDC planning regulations make it easier to get planning permission
for tourist accommodation than it is for local resident housing. The number of
self catering accommodation properties appears to have grown in North
Norfolk during the past years. Some say that the market is now saturated, and
this is reflected in the fact that DEFRA is now diverting grant funding for farm
diversification projects into tourist accommodation away from the ‘honey pot’
area of North Norfolk. There is still room for eco-tourism projects as well as
other diversification projects such as water resource, workplace conversions
etc.
The average farm in Norfolk generates a non-farming income of around
£24,500 per year, with much of this coming directly or indirectly from tourism
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 86 of 174
The North Norfolk area has a very strong and stable tourism industry. The
attractive open countryside and busy seaside towns attract tourists. However,
accommodation providers in North Norfolk experience a lower than average
occupancy rate. This is due to the diverse range of accommodation they offer.
The Curry Report 2002 states that:
“Alternative crops - those grown for some other purpose than food - have been
highlighted as a very important potential new market for farmers. Alternative
cropping plays to farmer’s core skills, and is one of the best diversification
options for farmers in arable areas who may lack opportunities in value-added
or tourist markets”.
Industrial and chemical uses of crops are constantly being developed. Producer
collaboration is vital in the non-food crops market. The Curry report
recommends that planning guidance must strongly support “development of
local combined heat and Power and gasification plants, in the context of
developing new energy markets”
Some “alternative crops” include the following
Asparagus – production in the UK has declined although this is an excellent
product with an export market.
Daffodils – These are relatively easy to fit into an existing crop rotation and
can compliment many farming systems and are a good product to market on a
worldwide basis, although European competition is depressing prices.
Dried Grass and Lucerne – these products are mainly aimed at the animal
market, especially equine. They may also be eligible for government subsidies.
Flax – this annual crop has many uses arising from the resulting fibre.
Industrial Crops & Essential Oil – interest in Industrial crops has been
growing steadily due to the decrease in prices for many of the more traditional
crops and there may be opportunities for a formidable amount of growth in this
area. Aromatic plants and their essential oils are a source of natural medicines
or plant protection chemicals.
Lupins – These plants have a low input, requiring minimal management.
Lupins may compliment existing crops rotations and improve the ground for
following crops.
Mushrooms – growers can expect to produce high yields and good quality
mushrooms. It may be a successful add-on to equine enterprises, where a
cheap supply of manure is available. However competition within the
marketplace is fierce.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 87 of 174
Sunflowers – sunflowers compare well with Oilseed rape in terms of input and
equipment requirement.
Turf – this may be an alternative to grass and can be fitted into existing
agricultural systems.
6.5
Options for diversification in North Norfolk
The farm diversification options available to different farms in North Norfolk
will be influenced by variables such as location, costs, return on capital
invested, availability of finance, employment costs and labour requirements.
Visitors to Norfolk look to farm based accommodation to provide a specific
experience in an attractive rural setting. The East of England Region “boasts
six marketing co-operative groups comprising farmer members who have
diversified into the provision of accommodation, either serviced and/or non
serviced”. (Source: www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/eastchapter/east14/tourism.htm)
North Norfolk has a diverse landscape and contains many areas of high
environmental value. North Norfolk has the lowest population density of the
East of England Region. The region’s economic heritage is as a framing and
food production region. Its countryside is vital in terms of biodiversity, with
the region containing SSSIs and an AONB.
Looking to the future, the relationship between farming practices and landscape
management will change again in the context of the CAP reform package. The
overall implications in terms of the biodiversity of rural areas are yet to be
seen, and they may vary significantly on a sub-regional scale.
Remote farms in North Norfolk may struggle to derive an income from tourism
due to poor accessibility and high costs. However, the continuing demand for
outdoor pursuits and package holidays may well become an option for on-farm
diversification. Those farms situated nearer to the coast and urban areas may
well be better suited to diversification relating to tourism.
Honey Pot Coastal resorts and villages in the west of the District suffer
overcrowding, while the relatively under-developed coastal area to the east, in
terms of the number of tourism visits, is in decline.
The quality of the landscape in North Norfolk draws tourists to the area but also
brings with it responsibilities in terms of managing the visitors and preserving
the area’s special qualities for future generations.
There are many ICT opportunities for collective marketing of events and
activities. While the tourism industry creates employment for many people in
North Norfolk, these jobs are often low-paid, under-skilled and seasonal.
North Norfolk’s high dependence on tourism means that tourism businesses
must look to maintain or expand their competitiveness if they are to survive and
prosper in the future.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 88 of 174
Issues:
The tourism industry needs to consider the local community and the
environment in future partnership developments.
Over the past decade there have been significant changes in the domestic
tourism market away from main holidays to short breaks. North Norfolk has
adapted well to these changing market trends, exploiting its relative proximity
to main centres of population, its natural environment and attraction as a place
to escape to, and the predominance of its smaller, quality accommodation.
The North Norfolk Farmer Survey highlighted that obtaining planning
permission, lack of capital, and poor access and road network to the farm were
major problems holding back their diversification efforts.
Factors that have prevented farmers in North Norfolk from developing an
existing diversified business, or caused them to cease:
Agricultural tenancy agreement
restrictions
Difficulty obtaining planning
permission
Unable to supply enough produce
Poor access and road network to
farm
Difficulty getting people with the
right skills for the job
Future
Current
Discontinued
Lack of land
Lack of capital or cashflow
problems
Difficulty obtaining the right advice
or information
Lack of buildings
Lack of expertise or training
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
(Source: Acorus North Norfolk Postal Survey 2005)
Opportunities:
Tourism opportunities for farm diversification in the region of North Norfolk
exist in the following areas:
•
•
•
•
Tourist accommodation
Activity holidays
Package holidays
Outdoor pursuits
The tourism season needs to be extended in order to create more permanent
employment, higher levels of pay and improved employment conditions.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 89 of 174
Grants and funding available:
The Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES) is part of the England Rural Development
Programme (ERDP). It provides assistance for projects that help to develop
more sustainable, diversified and enterprising rural economies and
communities. For commercially based projects funding of between 10% and
50% of eligible expenditure could be possible. However this is a competitive
scheme and so funding is not guaranteed.
6.6
Organic and traceable foods
The organic market continues to be one of the fastest growing areas of the UK
food and drink sector, with a 15% expansion in sales between April 1991 and
April 2002.
The organic food market grew in retail sales value by 10.3% in the year ending
April 2003. This has continued the fall in annual growth rate since the year
ending April 2000, although growth in the organics market is still much more
substantial than that of the total grocery market.
The slow down of growth in the organic sector is mainly due to a maturing
sector and a level of saturation. However, some of the highest growth recently
has been achieved in fresh meat, baby foods and milk.
Since 1992 there has been government support for organic farmers and
growers, in the shape of grants for the organic conversion of agricultural land.
However, a sudden increase in the amount of organic milk being produced has
led to a vast quantity of organic milk being marketed as non-organic. This has
resulted in the ‘organic premium’ for milk being reduced and hence the
economics of organic milk production are now being questioned.
Approximately 50% of the organic food market is represented by imports, but
this percentage is in decline and is being met by home production. Imports of
meat have also recently fallen.
The Farmer’s Voice Survey (2004) asked respondents to indicate their
likelihood of undertaking each of six different strategic actions in the near
future. Responses are summarised, in table in the appendix, on the basis of any
organic compared to non-organic producers.
Over half, 51%, of organic producers indicated some likelihood of developing
alliances with other farmers and this was ahead of the 40% of non-organic
producers likely to follow this option.
Just below half, 47% of organic producers indicated some likelihood to market
directly to consumers, compared to 19% among non-organic producers.
Over a third, 38% of organic growers would consider ceasing agricultural
production but maintain the land in good agricultural environmental condition
compared to 30% among non-organic growers.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 90 of 174
In March 2005 the Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) replaces the
organic farming scheme and Organic Aid. Land to be entered into OELS must
be either fully organic or in conversion. Entry into the OELS will net the
business an additional £60 per hectare over all of the organic land.
6.7
Bio-fuels
Climate change has become a top priority for governments worldwide, with the
UK leading the debate as both president of the G8 summit and the European
Union.
However latest figures from the EU15 show greenhouse gas emissions rose by
1.3% in 2003 and, more alarmingly, by 2.2% in the UK. With the net rise of
3% since 1997, there is now a real risk that the UK will miss its Kyoto target.
The case, therefore, for using agriculture to provide a unique, proven and
relatively cheap opportunity to make a real contribution to combat climate
change in Britain has never been more convincing. Adoption of biofuels to
deal with CO2 emissions from transport (the fastest growing energy demand
sector), offers rapid, easy and targeted greenhouse gas savings. The EU target
is for 5.75% renewable road transport fuel in the UK by 2010. Currently the
government incentive to kick-start the UK biofuel industry is a 20% cut in fuel
duty for biofuels. Those with an interest in this fledgling business calculate
that 28 ppl is needed to kick-start production.
The UK’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol include the target of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2012. The domestic
target is to generate 10% of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by
2010.
The UK is sitting at the bottom of the EU biofuels’ league table. Of the 19
member states with declared targets for the biofuel share of transport fuels for
2005, the UK’s 0.3% puts it way behind the EU 2% target. It lags behind the
Czech Republic and Sweden, at 3% and is beaten by Germany, France, Spain,
Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia and Belgium with 2% targets.
One of the main reasons for the UK’s lethargic approach to biofuels, compared
with its EU neighbours, has been the ‘cushion’ afforded by North Sea oil.
Other member states, particularly in central Europe, have been forced to
develop new sources of fuel in the face of hikes in oil prices following the
OPEC and Middle Eastern crises. However North Sea oil reserves are drying
up and in 2004, for the first time, the UK imported more petrol and diesel than
it exported. Oil prices are at a record high and are expected to go higher, so the
case for biofuels is both economic, strategic and environmental.
Rapeseed oil and other vegetable oils can be processed to make biodiesel, while
bioethanol can be made from processing wheat, sugar beet, potatoes and a
variety of other starch and sugar crops.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 91 of 174
Based on European Commission estimates, if biofuel production accounted for
5.75% of road fuel, 20-30,000 jobs would be created in the UK, mainly in rural
areas. Research from Reading University shows that this would generate
around £175m in income for the UK. The production of biofuels would also
support mixed cropping in the UK and provide a valuable outlet for producers
hit by sugar reforms. By supporting a domestically fed biofuel industry a base
will be put in the cereal and oilseed market and new markets found for the
restructured sugar-beet industry; without which marginal land is predicted to
become a monoculture of grass.
Research to date into the environmental impacts has shown that increased
biofuel production from a broad mix of arable crop and feedstocks would have
a broadly neutral effect on the farmed environment. Direct replacement of
cereal crops with oilseed rape would have no significant effect. However,
replacement of spring grown break crops by an expanding winter oil seed rape
or cereal area could have a negative effect on crop diversity and farmland birds
as over-wintered stubble provides a valuable habitat for a number of important
bird species.
The USA now has a flourishing green fuels industry, which is expected to
produce 4 billion gallons of bioethanol in 2005. America’s production is on
target to make it the world’s largest bioethanol producer by 2006, outstripping
Brazil. There is a US government target to double production to 8 billion
gallons by 2010. Blended bioethanol sales now account for 3% of the huge US
transport fuel market, a shift primarily driven by the desire for US fuel security.
The observed benefits in the US are dramatic, with a positive and reinvigorated
agricultural economy. The development of medium-scale agricultural cooperative bioethanol plants appears also to have been responsible for the
industry’s expansion, allowing growers to become stakeholders and benefit
from impressive returns on investment. Local corn prices have also improved
dramatically because of increasing demand.
Biofuels are becoming more mainstream in the UK, but much of it is still being
imported. Tesco is one company that imports over 5,000 litres of bioethanol a
month from Brazil to blend, at 5%, with its unleaded petrol for its South East
stores. Tesco plans to roll his out to its stores in the North West and a new 1%
biodiesel blend later this summer.
By this autumn, it is hoped that the £21m biodiesel plant in Teeside, owned by
The Biofuels Corporation, will be on stream. It will use around 150,000t of
UK produced oilseed rape and 250,000 tonnes of imported palm oil each year.
Meanwhile, Greenergy Fuels has received planning permission for a 100,000t
biodiesel plant in Immingham, potentially requiring 125,000t f rape per annum.
British Sugar has just announced its second stage of planning for a 55,000t
bioethanol plant at Wissington.
Palm and soya bean oil are already being imported to the UK to produce
biodiesel. Research has suggested that about 2-5 farming jobs could be created
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 92 of 174
(or sustained where crops substitute for other cultivation) for each 1,000 tonnes
of biofuel produced. A 100,000 tonne processing plant could therefore
create/sustain around 60-80 jobs directly and as many as 550 jobs in
agriculture.
7.
FARMER CONTROLLED BUSINESSES (FCBS)
It is widely believed that the recent MTR reform of the CAP, particularly the
decoupling of support from production, will increase the scope for individual
farms and groups of farms to become more flexible in what they produce and
thereby more responsive to value adding market opportunities.
The development of a more entrepreneurial mindset will become increasingly
important for farmers as in the medium term levels of farm support will reduce.
The new freedom to alter cropping and stocking in response to market forces
implies that in future food retailers and processors, as well as food service
companies, will have to work more closely with their farm suppliers to ensure
an adequate and timely supply from UK farms. Operating in an increasingly
concentrated supply chain and with less and less government involvement in
the market, individual farmers find themselves in a weak strategic position
within the industry. The often difficult relations between farmers and food
processors and retailers are a symptom of this unbalanced situation. Farmers
must understand the importance of scale, reputation and competitiveness in an
increasingly global food market and that by collaborating farmers and their
food chain partners can establish a competitive advantage for the UK food
industry. As the competitive pressures mount, the creation and capture of value
by businesses increasingly demands a thorough understanding of consumer
needs and the ability to work collaboratively with others to supply those needs
most cost effectively.
The growth of vertical collaboration in the food chain is happening in response
to demand for greater supply chain efficiencies and market effectiveness. It is
seen as the best way of delivering more consistent quality, predictability of
supply and consistent prices. For those producers who are not part of an
aligned supply chain the future will be increasingly difficult to predict and plan
for, unless they can satisfy a clear niche market.
The rapidly growing food service sector represents a clear opportunity for UK
farmers to work on both a large scale supplying contract caterers and on a local
scale emphasising the traceability and source of their product. However, like
retailers, large food service buyers require sufficient volume of consistent
quality and this could be achieved by producers collaborating to meet this
demand. The risk for producers is that as consolidation continues further cost
reduction is sought as processors compete and that, once established, the
processor and producers are highly dependent on perhaps one major retailer. It
is important to recognise this and mitigate the risk. If a partnership works well
and both sides share in the efficiency and longer term gains, then mutual
dependence provides a higher level of security.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 93 of 174
Collaborating farmers cite more efficient investment, reduced costs and shared
skills as benefits of production collaboration; and a strengthened position in the
food chain coupled with reduced marketing costs as key benefits of marketing
collaboration. However there is a lack of conviction amongst some farmers
that the perceived benefits flow through to their bottom line. Concerns also
exist about the management ability within FCBs.
Some farmers collaborate to deliver environmental benefits. A few have turned
this into a marketing advantage. Research shows that in the future many
farmers would support collaboration to meet the anticipated increase in
environmental regulation.
Non-collaborating farmers cite lack of opportunity, loss of independence and
not being convinced of the benefits as the factors that hold them back from
greater collaboration. For farmers to relax their desire for independence and
accept loss of control they must be attracted to good opportunities for
collaboration and see clear benefits.
FCBs see farmer independence as the barrier to their growth. They do not see
lack of opportunity as an issue suggesting they are not always communicating
their message to non-members. FCBs see the effect of MTR and changing
markets as the big unknown and are concerned that farmers lack loyalty to
them. In terms of future help FCBs have identified market advice and strategic
business advice and information as key.
With a thorough understanding of consumer needs and the ability to work with
others to supply those needs most cost effectively, farmers could both create
and also capture more value from the food chain than they do at present. But
many farmers are still not positioning themselves to do this and risk having
their market returns pushed down to levels determined primarily by world
agricultural commodity prices as openness allows EU food markets to be
increasingly dictated by external suppliers.
It is believed that farmers do not collaborate more because they want to remain
independent. Farmers on the other hand indicate that the key reasons are that
they have not had the opportunity, they are unconvinced of the benefits and
they lack trust in the FCBs they know about.
The key issue for farming, and its suppliers and customers in the food chain is
to recognise that the attitudes and business practices that served in an era of
protection and price support are unlikely to be appropriate in the future. The
future will be characterised by intense competition but also new opportunities.
New technologies will deliver not only more efficient production techniques
but also a much wider range of food and non-food products. As a global
business, food and farming like other global businesses, must adapt to its
changing environment. It seems sensible that in the process it should learn
from the experience of other industries and be prepared to embrace the
practices and collaborative relationships that have served to keep them
competitive. As governments step-back from the support of farm gate prices so
farmers must seize the initiative and try to capture the value they create.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 94 of 174
An efficient and effective food chain necessitates a new collaborative mind set
by all participants. The changing dynamics in the food chain represent a huge
opportunity for those farmers who position themselves to meet the needs of
retailers and food service companies. In particular, farmers need to collaborate
both horizontally and vertically; first, with fellow farmers, to gain economies
of scale in purchasing, operating and marketing as well as to share knowledge
and best practice. Secondly, they need to collaborate with their suppliers and
customers, to ensure a consistent supply of high quality product, in the quantity
required and at the right time and place, to reduce logistical costs, improve
relationships within the food chain and speed up the flow of information
between partners. Collaboration provides a way in which farmers, as relatively
small businesses, can participate and compete in the food chain in a way that
would not be possible on their own. For example, bringing producers together
could make the distribution of local and regional food sold at farmers’ markets
more efficient as well as minimising food miles thereby helping to satisfy the
growing desire for a more sustainable food and farming industry.
Yet the farming industry in England is behind the game in collaboration. For a
range of historical reasons, including our previous trading relationships,
differing support structures and land laws and a political focus on the
consumer, co-operation among farmers has not developed in the UK to the
extent that it has in Europe and North America. The value being added by
FCBs in these regions is huge and in many cases is still growing.
In its simplest form farmer collaboration may consist of two or more farmers
getting together and sharing their resources to reduce cost. The next stage may
involve the formation of a separate business entity, sometimes extending or
evolving into a larger scale business such as a machinery ring with many
members. This is production collaboration with the purpose of creating and
capturing value that would otherwise be lost in higher costs of production.
Contract farming has undoubtedly helped farmers to reduce costs of production
but in its purest form is no more than a farmer buying in a service that he
cannot provide due to lack of resources whether it is capital, labour or indeed
managerial skill. True collaboration only starts when all parties share a
common goal, are prepared to invest in the relationship and to shoulder a fair
share of the risk inherent in any value seeking activity.
A major difficulty for farmer collaboration is that unless the individual farms
are very large it takes large groupings of farm businesses to achieve the scale of
output that is commercially viable for dealing with processors, retailers and
food service companies. Whereas small groups of farmers could join together
in collaborations based on trust to supply niche markets, a grouping of farmers
capable of operating at a regional, national or even multinational level calls for
a more formal collaboration involving an organisational architecture capable of
managing a larger scale business. Such a formal collaboration is an FCB.
An FCB is a separate legal entity often established as an Industrial and
Provident Society or a limited company with farmer members or shareholders.
They can be small, for instance a group of farmers operating a pea viner or
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 95 of 174
grain store, or large such as a major dairy or grain co-operative. The key
principle is that it is set up to benefit the farmers that it is servicing.
FCBs may be focused on delivering one or more of the following:
•
•
•
Purchasing economies: allowing members to buy inputs at lower prices.
Marketing economies: enabling members to achieve jointly the benefits of
large scale operations.
Processing economies: providing members with the means of capturing
value from downstream processes.
The traditional picture of England’s farmers is one of a desire to maintain
independence and control of their decision making with minimum
collaboration with others.
At the present time around two thirds of farmers claim they run their businesses
independently and do not work with other farmers or other businesses either in
production or marketing collaboration. 38% have collaborated to buy inputs.
A common trend is that larger farms and those involved in more specialised
and unsupported crops demonstrate a much greater willingness to collaborate
with 16% of larger farms having done so in production, 41% in marketing and
up to 60% in buying inputs.
Most significantly three quarters of all farmers believe collaboration will be
more important in the future. This trend is particularly identified amongst
farmers within the supported sectors faced with major CAP reform.
Collaboration in production between farmers in a formal arrangement is
currently a mere 5% although for larger farms, which on the face of it might be
more self sufficient, the figure is significantly higher at 11%. This suggests
that smaller farmers either find it more difficult to find collaborative partners,
or they believe there is less benefit for them. Vegetable growers and root
cropping farms have a much higher level of production collaboration.
Approximately 25% of farmers have been or are currently involved in market
collaboration. Again larger farms and specialist cropping farms demonstrate
greater collaborative activity. Unfortunately, this follows the trend identified in
production collaboration, with the smaller farmer choosing to opt out or
coming across more barriers to collaboration. One possible cause maybe that
marketing co-ops are less attracted to smaller farmers, due to the cost of
transport, and administrative, assurance and traceability issues, and therefore
do less to encourage them to join.
From its study of global FCBs, the English Farming and Foods Partnership
(EFFP) has identified the following 6 important factors in developing
successful farmer controlled businesses (FCBs):
•
The driving motivation must be profit, not co-operation for its own sake.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 96 of 174
•
•
•
•
•
Planning must be strategic and long term to deliver maximum benefit to
farmer members.
Total member commitment and loyalty to the organisation is needed.
The hiring of professional management and allowing space to manage is
essential.
Strict corporate governance must be adhered to. This will ensure the
integrity and proficiency of management.
Risks must be taken through investing in order to capture greater rewards
from the supply chain.
Despite the development of some very innovative collaborative initiatives in
England, and a handful of very good FCBs, on aggregate collaboratively we are
still a long way behind North America and Europe.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 97 of 174
8.
KEY TRENDS FOR THE RURAL ECONOMY AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS
As with many other sectors the trends suggest that there will be continued
rationalisation resulting in fewer but larger holdings. Already, by area, farms
over 100 hectares dominate with 80% of the total agricultural land within North
Norfolk.
The area of grassland is increasing yet the number of grazing livestock is
falling. The rise in grassland area is predominantly due to marginal land being
taken out of conventional cropping as the economics of growing crops has
come under pressure. With the decoupling of subsidy from production this
trend is bound to continue. The increase in uptake of Environmental schemes
will accelerate this trend.
Whilst there has been a dramatic fall in breeding pig numbers in North Norfolk,
the total number of pigs within the region has dropped by 7% in the last 15
years. This highlights the change within the region from breeding pig herds to
finishing pigs. With the increasing specialization within the pig sector and the
capital requirements for pig breeding buildings it is unlikely that this position
will reverse.
With little improvement in the economics of milk production it is likely that the
already small number of dairy producers within North Norfolk will continue to
dwindle as milk production migrates to the west where grass production is
more sustainable.
Due to the low pay structure, unsociable working hours and lack of affordable
housing within the rural sector the average age of those employed in agriculture
is the highest of any industry in the UK, and is continuing to rise. Overall, the
skill level required among the workforce is increasing, particularly in relation
to machine-intensive agriculture, which is increasingly requiring technicianlevel skills and flexibility to deal with more complex equipment. This coupled
with the continued out-migration of the younger workforce has significant long
term implications for the agricultural industry.
The imminent changes within the sugar beet regime are likely to have a
momentous effect on future cropping options within North Norfolk, again
having a nock on affect on employment in the area. Most farms will have to
cut back on production and a sugar beet price cut will force the least profitable
growers to exit the industry. The profitability of alternative land uses will
determine the extent of a cut back in sugar beet production.
The new Single Payment Scheme will also have a huge effect on future farming
enterprises. The main implications for production are reductions in cereals,
beef and sheep. There will be increased pressure to cut variable and fixed costs
with a resultant cut in employed on-farm labour as well as more farmers
becoming part-time.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 98 of 174
Cereals will only be grown where it is efficient to do so. There will also be an
increase in the use of alternative farming arrangements. Switch from break
crops to cereals and removal of more land from arable cropping to permanent
or temporary fallow. There will be more flexibility of land use between arable
crops and grass.
Further uptake of environmental schemes and woodland, also some additional
land will be taken out of agricultural production and managed to the minimum
requirements of Cross Compliance. Therefore more land will be taken ‘out’ of
agriculture.
More farmers are expected to introduce or expand existing diversification
enterprises to ‘supplement’ their farm incomes and make up profit shortfalls.
The primary choice of diversification is the alternative use for redundant farm
buildings or replacement of unsuitable buildings with purpose built units.
Historically, within North Norfolk, many of the redundant traditional buildings
have been converted into holiday accommodation, however it could be that this
sector is now approaching saturation and now other alternatives need to be
investigated. Due to the relatively isolated position of North Norfolk and the
present road infrastructure non-residential uses for these traditional buildings
will be limited. Horse tourism may be an avenue that could be expanded
further, this could have the added bonus of utilising some of the additional
grassland.
The rise in potential for crops to be used for biofuels will also generate
alternative uses for the land and give the agricultural businesses additional
markets that are not reliant on commodity market prices. By supporting a
domestically fed biofuel industry a base will be put in the cereal and oilseed
market and new markets found for the restructured sugar-beet industry; without
which marginal land is predicted to become a monoculture of grass.
For a few businesses there will be opportunities to develop niche markets for
their produce. The emphasis will be to add value with some form of on farm
processing and orientate the business nearer to the customer. This may be
achieved by direct retailing for example Farm Shops or Farmers Markets. The
number of Farmers Markets continues to rise and there is a willingness to pay
for fresh, locally produced, quality produce.
To help drive the challenge of reducing input and fixed costs more
collaboration and joint ventures will be considered. The rise in Farmer
Controlled Businesses may lead to further reduction in production orientated
labour but may have a positive effect on those employed in adding value to
primary agricultural produce. However the increase in business rationalisation
will undoubtedly result in an increase in redundant farm buildings as farming
operations become more centralised and fewer in number.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 99 of 174
SECTION 3
The Planning Issues –
Methodology
Introduction
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 100 of 174
INTRODUCTION
The brief issued by North Norfolk District Council identified a number of key rural
issues to be addressed. In undertaking the study Acorus divided these into 8 key areas
as follows.
-
Agricultural Buildings
-
Agricultural dwellings and occupancy conditions
-
Conversion of rural buildings
-
Low cost housing
-
Land Use including AONB and Agricultural Land
Quality
-
Farm Diversification (Including Farm Shops and Other
On-Farm Non Agricultural Development)
-
Replacement buildings
-
Recreation and Tourism
These areas are not mutually exclusive and there are clearly relationships between
them but they encompass the key issues in terms of rural policy formulation.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 101 of 174
SECTION 4
Historic Guidance
The North Norfolk Local Plan 1998
National Planning Policies and other
Influences
Introduction
North Norfolk Local Plan
Other Historic Policy Document
Results of Current Advice
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 102 of 174
INTRODUCTION
North Norfolk Local Plan
Understanding the historical policy framework and existing Local Plan is essential to
any study of its effects. In terms of rural policy the specific local plan policies and
Government advice in PPG 7 (now superseded) are the key guidance. These policies
have had an effect on trends and forecasts as well as farmer perceptions. They give an
insight into how planning policies have and could impact on land use trends and show
the likely consequences of adopting policy options, when considered in relation to the
North Norfolk Farmer Survey and the agricultural study contained in this report. This
information has allowed us to consider practical implementation of these policies and
puts into context the review of previous rural planning applications submitted to North
Norfolk.
4.1
The current North Norfolk Local Plan has a number of policies specifically
related to the Rural Economy. The brief for this study identified a number of
these as follows
Policy 22
Agricultural Land
Policy 23
Prior Approval of Agricultural and Forestry Buildings
Policy 29
The Reuse and Adaptation of Buildings in the
Countryside
Policy 66
Agricultural and Forestry Workers’ Dwellings in the
Countryside
Policy 67
Removal of Agricultural Occupancy Conditions
Policy 76
Farm Diversification
Policy 88
Farm Shops
Policy 117
Horses
Some consideration has also been given to Policy 57 although not strictly
within the remit of this research.
4.2
Other Historic Policy Documents
The other key influences on how current development has occurred are
government policies and other guidance. These have both influenced how
development control decisions have been taken in the past, but also the
mentality of applicants. These applicants are driven not only by their own
economic situation but also government policies, strategies and grant provision.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 103 of 174
PPG7 – The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social
Development replaced the former 1992 version with the following aims:o to take account of the White Paper Rural England, and of PPGs
published since 1992;
o to advise on achieving good quality development and respecting the
character of the countryside;
o to re-state and clarify policy on protecting the best agricultural land;
o to clarify policy on the re-use of rural buildings, allow greater
discrimination in favour of re-use for business rather than residential
purposes, and advise on incorporating a residential element within a
scheme for business re-use;
o to stress the importance of thoroughly checking the lawfulness of
developments to be carried out under agricultural permitted
development rights, and advise on the possible removal of new
buildings erected under them but not used for agriculture;
o to strengthen the agricultural dwellings concession to counter abuse;
and
o to advise on local countryside designations and on the planning
implications of Rural Development Areas and European Union
Objective 5(b) areas.
In March 2001 Paragraph 2.8 and 2.9 of PPG7 was amended with the
following paragraphs:(2.8) When preparing their development plans and deciding planning
applications, local planning authorities should take account of any statutory
designation (see part 4 of this PPG) and then weigh the need to:
•
encourage rural enterprise, including the diversification of farm
businesses;
•
protect landscape, wildlife and historic features;
•
safeguard best and most versatile agricultural land (see paragraphs 2.17
and 2.18);
•
have regard to the quality and versatility of land for use in forestry and
other rural enterprises;
•
protect other non-renewable resources;
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 104 of 174
•
strengthen rural communities by encouraging new employment,
facilitating an adequate supply of affordable and market housing and
underpinning services and community facilities;
•
achieve good quality development which respects the character of the
countryside; and
•
secure safe development by taking account, where appropriate, of the
stability of the land (see PPG14).
•
(2.9) Local planning authorities should take account of the advice in
Planning for Rural Diversification: A Good Practice Guide on:
•
assessing the economic and social needs of their areas;
•
devising positive development plan policies for economic activity
which respects the countryside; and
•
taking a constructive approach to planning applications.
The Good Practice Guide on Rural Diversification – A good practice guide was
produced in 1992 and was a key influence on development plan policies from
that time.
Part of North Norfolk was designated as an objective 5b area and this also had
a key influence in terms of positive advice and grant aid.
4.3
Results of Current Advice
The advice within the existing North Norfolk Local Plan and National Policies
clearly has had an impact on the type of development that has been both
encouraged and discouraged and ultimately permitted through the application
process.
Understanding what has worked and what has not is important before deciding
on changes that can be made in the light of new guidance as outlined in Section
7.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 105 of 174
SECTION 5
What has been Achieved and
What Lessons have been Learnt
The positives and negatives
Introduction
Focus Groups
Farmer Surveys
Agricultural Business Surveys
Analysis of Planning Application
Analysis of Local Plan Policies
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 106 of 174
INTRODUCTION
The existing policy framework has been assessed to analyse practical implementation,
consider relevant issues such as infrastructure, market demand and effect on the rural
economy.
Research was undertaken through the following methods:i)
Farmer Focus Groups
ii)
ADAS North Norfolk Farmer surveys.
iii)
Agricultural Business Survey
iv)
Analysis of rural planning applications submitted to North
Norfolk District Council during the life of the existing local
plan.
The first three of these methods are based on ‘grass roots’ perceptions and opinions
and should be considered as such.
5.1
Focus Groups
A series of four farmer focus groups were held with attendance of between 10
and 20 farmers at each.
The attendance list showed a spread of size and type of agricultural businesses
and included representatives from the National Farmers Union.
The eight key issues listed in Section 2 were considered in terms of existing
local plan policy, national planning polices, problems with policy relating to
actual proposals and potential solutions.
The results of the focus groups are included at Appendix 2 of this report but the
main findings and feelings that came forward from farmers included the
following:Key issues from Focus Groups:
The following are some of the perceptions and opinions identified (note not all
attendees necessarily shared all these views). They have been reported in the
form expressed by farmers during this consultation process.
•
Agricultural Occupancy Conditions – no local workers available.
•
Seasonal workers were a key resource but the provision of permanent
accommodation was considered to be a problem.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 107 of 174
•
Relocation of intensive agricultural sites currently in/or adjacent to
villages, should be considered.
•
Holiday accommodation too expensive in terms of capital investment
with low returns. The fact that grants were ending was also an issue.
•
Retail in rural areas had potential, in terms of re-use of buildings.
•
Highways conditions on access were often too onerous and too
expensive.
•
Diversification is essential and should be based on a sound financial
plan.
•
Diversification of the wider rural economy was needed not just on
working farms.
•
There are likely to be more redundant buildings due to CAP reforms
and sugar beet regime.
•
There is a shortage of rural housing.
•
There is an over supply of holiday lets.
•
Restrictive policies on farm shops are preventing development.
•
The policies on diversification are seen as too restrictive.
•
Business growth is seen to be more restricted in AONB and other
landscape areas.
•
Policies on agricultural buildings and development only consider
permitted development and give no guidance on planning applications.
•
AONB/Areas of High Landscape Value/County Wildlife sites cover
large areas of the district. Agricultural development in these areas is
restricted to the detriment of businesses due to these large designations
rather than each site considered on landscape issues.
•
North Norfolk District Council is not positive towards agriculture and
seems to be contrary to other government and DEFRA guidance.
•
Replacement farmsteads/new farmsteads not considered.
•
Highways always a problem.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 108 of 174
5.2
Farmer Survey
In order to gather as much first hand information and to give the farmers an
opportunity to participate in the process a survey of agricultural holdings was
carried out.
A paper based survey was chosen, as in an industry that is associated with
extended and unpredictable working hours, a self-completion questionnaire can
allow respondents the flexibility to participate, at a time that best suits them
and to give due consideration to the questions being asked.
A survey questionnaire was constructed that would gather details about the
farm business and cropping, diversification enterprises, attitude to farming and
the CAP reform as well as various issues regarding housing, redundant
buildings and planning. A sample of the questionnaire is contained within
Appendix 3. The questionnaire and a covering letter were sent out in early
June 2005 to 500 of the 1,000 holdings in North Norfolk.
81 completed questionnaires were returned and these were analysed by ADAS
Market Policy and Research department. The analysis is contained within 177
tables and can be provided on request.
Below is a summary of the main findings:
Farm Details 86% of the land is owned and farmed by the owner and 51% of farmers also
had additional land that was farmed under an agricultural tenancy.
Within the last 5 years 25% had increased their acreage (mainly those growing
field vegetables) and 6% had decreased their acreage (mainly within the dairy,
pigs and poultry sectors).
70% of respondents said that their areas farmed would not change within the
next 5 years.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 109 of 174
Percentage of holdings with livestock/arable or horticultural enterprises
12
Other cash crops
25
Field vegetables
90
Combinable crops
88
Root crops
5
Intensive poultry
4
Intensive pigs
9
Outdoor pigs & poultry
4
Dairy
33
Beef & sheep
5
Forage maize
57
Grassland
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Only 1 respondent had some organic enterprises.
Percentage of respondents with the following cropping
98
Set aside
7
Claim SP without cropping
9
Non-food crops
51
Woodland
30
Rough Grazing
57
Grass
25
Field Vegetables
48
Potatoes
86
Sugar Beet
90
Combinable crops
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Over 90% of livestock farmers presently market their produce through
livestock markets or direct to an abattoir. In the next 5 years it is indicated that
this will fall slightly with more of the produce being sold direct to customers
(e.g. farmers markets and farm shops).
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 110 of 174
Diversification -
Percentage of the different enterprises among those respondents who have
diversified
Off-farm non-agricultural business
Leasing of land
Leasing of buildings
Farm-based craft business
Other farm-based leisure business
(eg sports, open farms)
Equine (eg livery, grazing, riding
trail)
Future
Current
Discontinued
Farm-based accommodation (eg
B&B, self catering)
Farm-based food retailing
Farm-based food processing
Agricultural services
Non-food crops
Novel livestock (eg ostriches,
rabbits)
Novel food crops
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Percentage of respondents that listed the factors as barriers to diversifying
Agricultural tenancy agreement
restrictions
Difficulty obtaining planning
permission
Unable to supply enough produce
Poor access and road network to
farm
Difficulty getting people with the
right skills for the job
Future
Current
Discontinued
Lack of land
Lack of capital or cashflow
problems
Difficulty obtaining the right advice
or information
Lack of buildings
Lack of expertise or training
0
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
10
20
30
40
50
60
Page 111 of 174
28% of respondents indicated that “farming has a limited future – I need to
diversify”.
33% indicated that “I see my future in farming but I expect that I will have to
change my farming practice”.
Only 1% indicated that they would give up farming altogether.
Percentage of respondents who replied to “How likely are you to do each
of the following in the near future
70
65
65
60
50
41
40
38
36
Yes/possibly
No/unlikely
30
30
25
23
19
20
14
10
0
Develop alliances with
other farmers
Develop alliances with
customers
Develop alliances with
service providers
Market directly to
consumers
Forward sell
CAP Reform -
40% of respondents indicated that they foresee no significant changes to their
main farm enterprises.
Of those that do foresee changes the most likely changes would be:
•
•
•
•
•
Cease and decrease combinable crop acreage
Cease and decrease sugar beet acreage
Increase field vegetable area
Claim SP without cropping
Due to the low number of livestock respondents it is difficult to draw
out any conclusive trends with statistical significance except an increase
in free range poultry.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 112 of 174
Percentage of respondents that replied to the likely changes in labour
requirements
50
45
43
40
37
35
35
30
Increase
No change
Decrease
25
20
14
14
15
10
10
5
0
Paid Labour
Unpaid labour
Housing –
43% of respondents had one or more dwellings with an agricultural occupancy
condition.
60% would consider letting these dwellings for local housing as a form of
diversification.
Redundant Buildings –
73% of respondents indicated that they had redundant buildings (this was
across all of the different farm types).
33% indicated that there would be further redundant buildings in the future.
94% of the redundant buildings could be described as traditional.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 113 of 174
Percentage of respondents that chose the following purposes would
encourage them to convert their redundant buildings
12
On farm processing
29
Office
14
Leisure
Retail
12
44
Holiday
Residential
70
32
Industrial
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage that replied to “If planning permission for an alternative use
was achieved what would you do with the building?”
60
54
50
40
30
19
20
15
10
0
Sell it
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Let it
Use it yourself
Page 114 of 174
5.3
Agricultural Business Surveys
To gather information to inform an analysis of trends within the agriculturally
related sectors, perceived demand for services and future requirements, a cross
section of businesses that are directly involved with offering services to farmers
were interviewed. The interview was conducted following a predetermined
format that gathered information about their core business, areas of operations,
and perceived changes in the agricultural sector and how this would impact on
their businesses and how they would react. Also views on planning issues to
do with their business and those of their customers were obtained.
A total of 30 telephone and one-to-one interviews were carried out. The
following categories of ‘business’ were contacted:
Business Link
Agricultural Supply Co-operative
Agronomists
Machinery rings
Machinery dealers
Agricultural mechanics
NFU
Banks
Accountants
Land Agencies
Agricultural Management Consultants
CLA
Fertiliser Supplier
Federation of Small Businesses
Farmers Market coordinators
Grain merchants
Millers
Agricultural engineers
Farm Building manufacturers and erectors
Farm Shops
The main points to be drawn from the interviews are:
•
There is great inertia within agriculture, farmers will take the next 3 years
to adapt to the SPS.
•
The changes will focus the grower into cost of production and marginal
land will come out of production.
•
Farmers will look to co-operate more with one another.
•
Biofuels could be a saviour to the sugar beet industry; if not there may not
be any sugar beet within the UK within 15 years.
•
Whilst the banks recognise the need for more ‘financing’ within the sector
and are happy to provide it, they are making it their duty to inform their
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 115 of 174
clients about the long term sustainability of their businesses, and the urgent
need to resolve problems.
•
Professional marketing of produce will become more important.
•
Farmers markets are expanding and there is scope for more within the area
if satisfactory sites are forthcoming.
•
The supply industry will have to fight for a share of a smaller market.
•
The contraction of farming activities will seriously impact on the supply
industries and there is great concern.
•
Slow down in erection of new buildings within medium sized businesses.
•
Highways are perceived as a thorn in the side of many failed planning
applications.
•
The road structure is limiting future prospects.
•
Current planning policies are too rigid and not flexible enough.
•
There is a “stone wall, no can do” attitude from planners.
•
Current planning policy is too narrow.
•
Should not impose ‘city policies’ in rural areas.
•
There is a need for more local housing.
•
More site meetings would be useful.
•
As farming ‘rationalises’ more redundant farm buildings will be created,
both traditional and the more modern steel frame type. What can be done
with them?
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 116 of 174
5.4
Analysis of Planning Application
A total of 30 case studies were selected at random by N.N.D.C. The samples
provided a background to the type of application and the development
proposed. 26 case studies were analysed in detail in order to identify the nature
of the application and its relevance to the rural economy. The major issues and
the relevant planning policies were extracted to enable trends to be observed
and the following became apparent.
5.4.1
Conversion of rural buildings was the most popular type of application
with a diverse range of uses, including:
Farm Shop, Hotel, Holiday Lets, Swimming Pools, Stables, Visitor
Centre, Coffee Shop, Business Units, Day Nursery, Arts studies, Bird
Centre and a Restaurant.
The survey showed that diversification including re-use of rural
buildings, to tourism was extremely popular and the majority included
some form of self catering holiday accommodation. The main issues
relevant to these applications were:
•
•
•
Highways and Parking Provision
Landscape and AONB impact
Effect on wildlife. Specifically Bats and Owls.
5.4.2 Agricultural and other occupational dwellings were also popular, with
all cases analysed being approved but at Committee level. Objections
and concerns centred on:
•
•
•
Size
Location
Landscape Impact
The applications analysed had the model agricultural occupancy
condition attached in most cases, but some were specific to the other
rural business operated which was not agricultural. The majority of the
applications required some form of landscaping or tree survey as
standard, particularly in AONB.
5.4.3
Agricultural Buildings were also a popular form of development. In
these cases the majority of decisions were delegated Landscaping
requirements and the presence of AONB status were some of the key
issues. In particular siting was deemed to be more important in the
AONB and use of natural features to reduce impact of the proposed
building was noted.
5.4.4
The survey showed that approximately 90% of applications gained
planning approval with a high proportion having implemented or
intending to implement their development in due course. The survey
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 117 of 174
also indicated that the two most quoted reasons for influencing the
decision to submit a planning application were as follows:
•
•
Maximise capital value of assets;
Change in enterprises.
These above reasons were followed closely by:
•
•
•
•
Re-use of redundant buildings
Increase in the size of the business
Customer requirements
Increased farm profitability
The survey responses clearly show that economic reasons have major
influences on farmers decisions to submit applications. With increased
capital values and farm incomes being consistent responses. The rural
enterprises and customer requirements are all influences which are
driven by market and economy conditions.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 118 of 174
5.5
Analysis of Local Plan Policies
Based on the evidence gathered and views of those surveyed and/or attending
the focus groups, the following conclusions were reached on the current
policies.
1.
Agricultural Buildings and Development
North Norfolk District Policy 23
Positive aspects of policy
•
Covers prior approval.
•
Practical guidance in part 9 (design guide).
•
Aims to protect the AONB.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
No specific policy on full planning applications for agricultural
buildings.
•
No specific policy on important and varied roles of agriculture in
managing the countryside and valued landscapes.
•
Does not take account of the requirement for farmers to become
more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
•
Allowing farmers to adapt to new and changing markets (e.g. free
range egg/table bird production).
•
Comply with changing legislation (IPPC).
•
Diversifying into new agricultural opportunities (e.g. renewable
crops).
•
Broaden their operations to ‘add value’ to their primary produce
(e.g. diversification/development of successful farm shops).
•
Farms within the AONB, county wildlife sites and areas of high
landscape value perceive that their businesses are constrained by
Policy 23. They also believe the beauty of these areas is dependent
on their continued farming and management of the countryside.
•
In terms of highways there is no positive policy in rural areas, this
constrains the rural economy.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 119 of 174
2.
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions
2.1
North Norfolk District Council Policy 66
Positive aspects of policy
•
A functional test is required.
•
There is specific criteria on siting design and
landscaping
•
Requirement for alternative accommodation
redundant buildings to be considered.
or
Areas for modification/improvement
2.2
•
The policy is specific to agricultural or forestry workers –
other occupational dwellings e.g. equestrian are not detailed
as now covered in PPS 7.
•
Consideration of financial sustainability is only required if
the functional test proves inconclusive.
Financial
sustainability should always be considered for a permanent
dwelling.
•
Imposing conditions on other houses on the farm can prove
to be impractical e.g. large listed houses.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 67: Removal of
Agricultural Occupancy Conditions.
Positive aspects of policy
•
There is a policy relating to removal of agricultural
occupancy conditions which includes guidance for potential
applicants.
Areas for modification/improvement
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
•
Criteria ambiguous – the words ‘reasonable’ and ‘genuine
ability’ are open to interpretation. There are no additional
guidance notes.
•
There is no information on alteration of conditions to
include diversification or alternative occupations.
•
The policy is not clear in its requirements.
Page 120 of 174
3.
Conversion of Rural Buildings
North Norfolk District Council Policy 29: The Re-Use and Adaption of
Buildings in the Countryside.
Positive aspects of policy
ƒ
Policy 29 supports the re-use of appropriately located and
suitably constructed rural buildings.
ƒ
The policy considers the importance of design in conversion.
ƒ
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is considered.
ƒ
Policy considers impact on the overall landscape.
Areas for modification/improvement
4.
•
The policy which considers residential conversion appropriate in
or adjacent to towns or villages does not necessarily encourage
the most appropriate scheme.
•
The policy includes detail on highways and may not allow for
small traffic increases and should be brought in line with PPG
13.
•
Commencement of development within two years can be
restrictive if the applicant needs to gain building regulations,
grant approval and funding. A two year timescale may be too
short.
•
Current policies are preventing full utilisation of the existing
rural built environment.
AONB and Other Landscape Issues
North Norfolk District Council Policy 20, 21 & 24
This was not specifically within the remit of this study but arose as it
has relationships with other policies.
Positive aspects on policy
•
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
The AONB is protected.
Page 121 of 174
Areas for modification/improvement
•
5.
Policies 21 and 24 are unnecessarily restrictive. The AONB and the
Broads and its setting cover a large area of agricultural land and can
be negative towards agricultural development proposals,
unnecessarily.
Farm Diversification
North Norfolk District Council
Policy 76: Farm Diversification
Policy 88: Farm Shops
Positive aspects of policy
The plan recognises farm diversification
Areas for modification/improvement
6.
•
The policy does not set out specific criteria relating to agricultural
diversification.
•
It is not supportive of well conceived farm diversification schemes.
•
It does not give detailed criteria on the wider benefit of
diversification.
•
It does not give detail on acceptable highways implications.
•
The policy on farm shops is restrictive on sale of non local produce.
This is constraining businesses and resulting in local foods being
harder to market.
Replacement Buildings
No policy exists in the North Norfolk District Council Local Plan 1998
due to changes in Government Policy since its publication.
PPS7 states the following:The Government is also supportive of the replacement of suitably
located, existing buildings of permanent design and construction in the
countryside for economic development purposes. The replacement of
buildings should be favoured where this would result in a more
acceptable and sustainable development than might be achieved through
conversion, for example, where the replacement building would bring
about an environmental improvement in terms of the impact of the
development on its surroundings and the landscape. Local planning
authorities should set out in their LDDs the criteria they will apply to
the replacement of countryside buildings. These should take account of
the considerations set out in paragraph 17 that apply to the conversion
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 122 of 174
and reuse for economic purposes of existing buildings in the
countryside. Authorities should also set out the circumstances where
replacement would not be acceptable and clarify the permissible scale
of replacement buildings.
7
Recreation and Tourism
7.1
North Norfolk District Council Policy 108
Positive aspects of policy
•
Includes the re-use of existing rural buildings.
•
AONB protected.
Areas for modification/improvement
7.2
•
All proposed developments should be outside the AONB and the
special landscape area which may restrict occupational schemes
within the areas.
•
Restrictive policy and provision of indoor sports facilities in rural
locations due to accessibility and highways.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 117: Horses
Positive aspects of policy
•
Guidance is given in a policy.
•
Specific policy exists.
Areas for modification/improvement
7.3
•
Restrictive policy in relation to highways and bridleways when
on-farm riding could be provided.
•
Policies open to interpretation.
•
No inclusion of set criteria for supporting equine enterprises that
maintain environmental quality and countryside character.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 123: Static Caravan Sites
Positive aspects of policy
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
•
The AONB is protected.
•
Enhancement and improvement of existing sites is encouraged.
Page 123 of 174
Areas for modification/improvement
•
7.4
There is no specific policy on small scale log cabin siting as farm
diversification e.g. log cabins with fisheries or horse riding
facilities.
Policy 125: Touring Caravan Sites
Positive aspects of policy
7.5
•
There are specific policies.
•
The AONB and undeveloped coast is protected.
North Norfolk District Council Policy 128:
Holiday Accommodation
Loss of Un-serviced
Positive aspects of policy
•
Retains important holiday accommodation which is site specific.
Areas for modification/improvement
•
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Does not consider circumstances when holiday occupancy
conditions should be lifted.
Page 124 of 174
SECTION 6
Other Local Authority
approaches to Rural Policy –
Beacon Status
Introduction
Reasons for Beacon Status
Analysis of Policy
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 125 of 174
INTRODUCTION
Whilst all Local Authorities take Government advice as the basis of their forward
planning process significant variations in approach do arise.
Differences can be due to specific local factors, which is an important element of
formulating local policy, or just due to varying approaches during preparation.
As part of this study councils who have Beacon status in terms of supporting the rural
economy were looked at in more detail. These councils are :Lancashire County Council
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Waverley Borough Council
Caradon District Council
Richmondshire District Council
Tynedale Council
Lincolnshire and South Holland District Council
6.1
Reasons for Beacon Status
The beacon scheme exists to facilitate the sharing of excellent practice so that
best value authorities can learn from one another. Stimulating and supporting
service improvement are the scheme’s aim (www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk ).
Authorities apply for beacon status under a variety of themes. Those that are
then chosen as beacons engage in an extensive period of dissemination activity,
whereby their policies and practices, initiatives and change processes are
publicised and policy makers and practitioners alike are given unprecedented
access to beacon officers and members (www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk) .
Local Authority
Lancashire County Council
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Waverley Borough Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Why did they achieve Beacon Status?
Recognition of its work in “Supporting
the Rural Economy”. The award
recognised the work Lancashire County
Council has done to regenerate and
support the county’s rural economy.
Recognition of its work under the theme
of “Supporting New Businesses”. The
award was achieved by the business
services team. The success of “supporting
new businesses” is underpinned by a
strong infrastructure of support from
council’s business services section. The
council also achieved beacon status for
supporting the rural economy in 2003/04.
Achieved beacon status for the rural
economy for 2003/04. Examples of best
practice submitted by Waverley for the
scheme included: partnership funding
Page 126 of 174
Caradon District Council
Richmondshire District Council
6.2
programmes for community schemes; its
support for market towns to improve their
vitality and viability; and its success in
delivering effective projects with a range
of partners.
Caradon Council is just one of seven
councils nationwide to be named as a
Beacon Council in the “Supporting the
Rural Economy” category of awards. The
council won recognition in the following
categories:
Business
infrastructure,
sustainable
tourism, agriculture, and fishing.
Richmondshire was awarded the Beacon
status in recognition of the excellent
service being provided in its support for
the rural economy.
Richmondshire’s
examples of best practice included the
Community Investment prospectuses
(CIP); specific actions taken and a flexible
approach to community economic
development (responding and reacting
positively to feedback from local
consultation).
Analysis of Policy
Analysis has taken the format of the 8 areas identified as being the
cornerstone of rural policy. The following tables confirm some of the
key features of the beacon status Local Authority plans.
Table 1. Comparison and Discussion of Local Plan Policies relating to
Agricultural Buildings and Land
Local Authority
South Holland District Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Policy
Development on agricultural land and
Greenfield sites only allowed after all
other sites considered. Recognises that
PPS7 encourages farmers to diversify.
Local plan seeks to minimise loss of
agricultural land. Seeks to concentrate
new development in towns and selected
villages. Recognises that the countryside
plays an important role within recreation.
Whilst supporting diversification and
conversion of farm buildings, the
Page 127 of 174
Tynedale District Council
Caradon District Council
Richmondshire District Council
Waverley Borough Council
countryside must be protected.
Development for the purposes of
agriculture or forestry within the
countryside will be permitted provided it
does not have an adverse impact on the
landscape, conservation sites, monuments
or listed buildings. The use of
sympathetic materials will be required in
sensitive locations
The use of best and most versatile
agricultural land for any development
associated with agriculture or forestry will
not be permitted unless there is a strong
case for development. Proposals for
intensive agricultural development will be
permitted if they do not harm views, the
colour of the buildings is minimised,
proper vehicular access is provided and
there is no impact in terms of smell, noise
and discharge.
The use of land for development in
upland or on best and most versatile land
will not be permitted unless there is an
overriding need. New farm buildings sited
on sites of an open nature will require
considerably
higher
design
and
landscaping standards.
Permission will be granted for agricultural
development provided that the proposal is
reasonably necessary, does not detract
from the character of the rural landscape
and the materials etc are appropriate to
the surrounding area, the proposal would
not give rise to significant noise and
disturbance, the amount of traffic
generated would not prejudice safety and
vehicular access can be achieved.
Table 2. Comparison and Discussion of Local Plan Policies relating to
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions
Local Authority
South Holland District Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Policy
Proposals for new dwellings in the open
countryside,
including
other
rural
settlements, will only be permitted where
such development is specifically provided
for under other policies of the plan.
Page 128 of 174
The only exception to policies which resist
new housing development in the open
countryside is where accommodation is
required to enable a farm worker or other
essential workers to live in the immediate
vicinity of their workplace.
Applicants must demonstrate that there is
a genuine need for the proposed
accommodation, and that an enterprise to
which the functional need relates is
profitable. Size, siting and design are also
considered.
The process is the same as that in PPS7.
Tynedale District Council
Planning applications for the removal of a
rural workers occupancy condition will
only be approved where it can be
convincingly demonstrated that the longer
term need for dwellings for rural workers
in the locality no longer warrants reserving
the dwelling for that purpose.
Caradon District Council
The removal of an occupancy condition
will only be granted where it is
demonstrated that there is no longer a
functional need and it is demonstrated that
there is no need in the area for agricultural
worker’s dwellings and a sustained
attempt has been made to market the
property.
Table 3. Comparison and Summary of Local Plan Policies relating to the
conversion of rural buildings
Local Authority
South Holland District Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Policy
Proposals for the re-use or adoption of
existing buildings outside defined
settlement limits to residential use will
only be permitted where the council is
satisfied the building is unsuitable for
employment uses, the building is of
permanent and substantial condition,
conversion can be achieved without
affecting the merit of the building, the
Page 129 of 174
Tynedale District Council
design is sympathetic to the building and
the building is capable of conversion
without significant alteration.
The change of use or conversion of
existing buildings in the open countryside
will be permitted for the following uses:
Small
scale
employment,
holiday
accommodation,
recreational
uses
(including camping barns and bunk
houses), tourist facilities and new rural
enterprises, including farm diversification.
All proposals for the change of use or
conversion of existing buildings in the
open countryside will be required to fulfil
criteria such as construction criteria,
affects on other rural amenities, the effect
on the surrounding landscape and nature
conservation issues.
The change of use or conversion to
residential use will only be permitted
where it can be demonstrated that
employment generating uses are not
suitable.
Conditions
withdrawing
agricultural
permitted development rights may be
attached to permissions for the conversion
of existing buildings to non agricultural
uses.
Table 4. Comparison and Summary of Local Plan Policies relating to the
conversion of low cost housing
Local Authority
North Norfolk District Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Policy
In the countryside development proposals
for affordable housing schemes promoted
by the council, housing associations, civil
parish councils, village trusts and other
similar organisations may be permitted on
sites not appropriate for general housing
development, provided that the applicant
demonstrates that there is a genuine local
need, the scheme will meet the need, the
Page 130 of 174
number of houses proposed does not
exceed the need, existing housing cannot
meet the need, the site adjoins the
boundary of a village, there would be no
adverse effect on the character of the
village and the scheme does not include
any element of market housing.
In selected small villages development
proposals for more than four dwellings
may be permitted provided that all the
excess dwellings are for affordable
housing.
South Holland District Council
The District council considers the
provision of affordable housing to meet
the needs of local people to be one of the
most important issues facing it. The
council therefore defines “Affordable
Housing” as being homes provided to
meet the needs of people who cannot
afford to buy or rent suitable property on
the open market. The council is following
the following three routes to ensure
maximum delivery:
Direct Provision by the District Council;
Provision by Registered Social Landlords
or Charities; or
Provision by Private Developers.
Tynedale District Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
The council will, where a relevant local
need has been established, seek to
negotiate with developers to secure an
appropriate element of affordable housing
on allocated and windfall sites. The
housing provided under this policy should,
where appropriate, be amiable for the life
of the property to provide affordable
housing for local people
Page 131 of 174
Table 5. Comparison and Discussion of Local Plan Policies relating to AONB’s
and landscape designations
Local Authority
South Holland District Council
Tynedale District Council
Caradon District Council
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Policy
For designated sites, the Council will seek
to
conserve
the
critical
nature
conservation value for which they were
designated, Proposals for development
which may affect such sites will be
assessed. Such sites will be assessed
against a number of criteria.
Development will not normally be
permitted which may directly or indirectly
destroy or adversely impair the integrity
of wildlife corridors and other areas which
are of major importance for wild flora and
fauna. The District Council will, in cooperation with others, seek opportunities
to consolidate and strengthen wildlife
corridors.
Priority will be given to the protection and
enhancement of the landscape qualities of
the North Pennines Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. Development within or
adjacent to the AONB which adversely
affects the special scenic quality of the
AONB will not be permitted.
Any large scale development within or
adjacent to the AONB will only be
permitted, when it is proven to be in the
national interest and there are no
alternative sites in less sensitive areas.
Development in the AONB’s and Heritage
Coast will not be permitted unless the
development is sited as to minimise its
visual impact on the landscape, is
designed so as to reflect locally distinctive
character, traditional building styles and
local materials and conforms with the
locally
characteristic
patterns
of
settlement.
Page 132 of 174
Table 6. Comparison and Discussion of Local Plan Policies relating to Farm
Diversification
Local Authority
South Holland District Council
Policy
Proposals for farm diversification projects
will be permitted provided that the
following criteria are met:
It is considered as a legitimate form of
farm diversification
The economic activity proposed relates to
a specific use or range of uses rather than
to a use class
Existing or redundant rural buildings are
utilised wherever it is practical to do so
It does not result in excessive expansion
and encroachment of building development
into the countryside
It does no result in an unacceptable traffic
impact on roads servicing the site
Tynedale District Council
The development would not result in an
adverse impact on neighbouring residential
properties or the local landscape and
environment
Outside settlements, proposals for farm
shops and other small scale retail outlets
will be permitted where criteria such as the
scale, design and landscaping of new or
converted facilities does not detract from
the visual amenity of the surroundings and
no detriment would be caused to highway
safety.
Proposals for the diversification of a farm
enterprise will be permitted, where the
criteria including the following are met;
Where relevant, the proposal retains
existing, or provides additional or
alternative employment; and where
possible, existing buildings are utilised.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 133 of 174
SECTION 7
Introduction
National Planning Policy
Other Guidance/Influences to Future
Policy
Rural Delivery Pathfinders – DEFRA
Regional Rural Delivery Framework for
the East of England
East of England Delivery Plans for
Sustaining Farming and Food
PPG 7 Implemented in Relation to the
Diversification of Farm Business –ODPM
The Federation of Small Businesses East
of England Area Policy Unit
The Characteristics of Businesses Using
Rural Buildings RICS
Consultation Draft – Strategy for the Horse
Industry in England and Wales, British
Horse Industry Federation February 2005
Norfolk Country Council Local Policies
and Standards for Highways Development
Control in Norfolk. Norfolk County
Council December 2004
The Price and Affordability of Dwellings
with Occupancy Conditions. Acorus May
2004.
National Farmers Retail and Market
Association.
Research by NCC – Through re-use of
redundant farm buildings. North Sea Rural
Project
North Norfolk Community Partnership
(NNCP)
Farmer’s Voice Survey and Farmers
attitudes survey (ADAS)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 134 of 174
INTRODUCTION
The new North Norfolk Local Development Framework needs to take account
of current Government advice but should also draw on other studies and reports
of which a number were identified as detailed below. These are not intended to
be an exhaustive list but are those documents/studies which provided useful
guidance.
7.1
National Planning Policy
7.1.1 PPS 7
Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
was published in August 2004. The policies set out in this document
will need to be taken into account by local planning authorities in the
preparation of local development documents. Other national planning
policies considered in this report are PPG13 and PPG3.
Government objectives for rural areas in PPS 7 include the following:(i)
To raise the quality of life and the environment in rural
areas through the promotion of:
-
thriving, inclusive and sustainable rural communities, ensuring
people have decent places to live by improving the quality and
sustainability of local environments and neighbourhoods;
-
sustainable economic growth and diversification;
-
good quality, sustainable development that respects and, where
possible, enhances local distinctiveness and the intrinsic
qualities of the countryside; and
-
continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of
all, with the highest level of protection for our most valued
landscapes and environmental resources.
(ii)
To promote more sustainable patterns of development:
-
focusing most development in, or next to, existing towns and
villages;
-
preventing urban sprawl;
-
discouraging the development of 'greenfield' land, and, where
such land must be used, ensuring it is not used wastefully;
-
promoting a range of uses to maximise the potential benefits of
the countryside fringing urban areas; and
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 135 of 174
-
providing appropriate leisure opportunities to enable urban and
rural dwellers to enjoy the wider countryside.
(iii)
Promoting the development of the English regions by
improving their economic performance so that all are able to
reach their full potential - by developing competitive, diverse
and thriving rural enterprise that provides a range of jobs
and underpins strong economies.
(iv)
To promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture
sectors where farming achieves high environmental
standards, minimising impact on natural resources, and
manages valued landscapes and biodiversity; contributes
both directly and indirectly to rural economic diversity; is
itself competitive and profitable; and provides high quality
products that the public wants.
Paragraph 27 of PPS7 covers agricultural development.
The Government recognises the importance and varied roles of
agriculture, including the maintenance and management of the
countryside and most of our valued landscapes. Planning policies in
RSS and LDDs should recognise these roles and support development
proposals that will enable farming and farmers to:
(i)
become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally
friendly;
(ii)
adapt to new and changing markets;
(iii)
comply with changing legislation and associated guidance;
(iv)
diversify into new agricultural opportunities (e.g. renewable
energy crops); or
(v)
broaden their operations to 'add value' to their primary produce.
Paragraph 10 of PPS7 covers policy on new agricultural dwellings.
Isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification
for planning permission to be granted. Where the special justification
for an isolated new house relates to the essential need for a worker to
live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside,
planning authorities should follow the advice in Annex A to this PPS.
Paragraph 17 of PPS 7 details re-use of buildings in the countryside.
The Government's policy is to support the re-use of appropriately
located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside
where this would meet sustainable development objectives. Re-use for
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 136 of 174
economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but
residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and
for some types of building. Planning authorities should therefore set
out in LDDs their policy criteria for permitting the conversion and reuse of buildings in the countryside for economic, residential and any
other purposes, including mixed uses.
These criteria should take account of:
-
the potential impact on the countryside and landscapes and
wildlife;
-
specific local economic and social needs and opportunities;
-
settlement patterns and accessibility to service centres, markets
and housing;
-
the suitability of different types of buildings, and of different
scales, for re-use;
-
the need to preserve, or the desirability of preserving, buildings
of historic or architectural importance or interest, or which
otherwise contribute to local character;
-
the need to preserve, or the desirability of preserving, buildings
of historic or architectural importance or interest, or which
otherwise contribute to local character.
In planning for housing in their rural areas, local planning authorities
should apply the policies in PPG3. They should:
(i)
have particular regard to PPG3 guidance on the provision of
housing in villages and should make sufficient land available,
either within or adjoining existing villages, to meet the needs of
local people; and
(ii)
strictly control new house building (including single dwellings)
in the countryside, away from established settlements or from
areas allocated for housing in development plans.
Paragraph 24 and 25 of PPS7 gives advice on local landscape
designations.
The Government recognises and accepts that there are areas of
landscape outside nationally designated areas that are particularly
highly valued locally. The Government believes that carefully drafted,
criteria-based policies in LDDs, utilising tools such as landscape
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 137 of 174
character assessment, should provide sufficient protection for these
areas, without the need for rigid local designations that may unduly
restrict acceptable, sustainable development and the economic activity
that underpins the vitality of rural areas.
Local landscape designations should only be maintained or,
exceptionally, extended where it can be clearly shown that criteriabased planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection. LDDs
should state what it is that requires extra protection, and why. When
reviewing their local area-wide development plans and LDDs, planning
authorities should rigorously consider the justification for retaining
existing local landscape designations. They should ensure that such
designations are based on a formal and robust assessment of the
qualities of the landscape concerned.
Paragraph 30 of PPS7 advises on farm diversification.
Recognising that diversification into non-agricultural activities is vital
to the continuing viability of many farm enterprises, local planning
authorities should:
(i)
set out in their LDDs the criteria to be applied to planning
applications for farm diversification projects;
(ii)
be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes
for business purposes that contribute to sustainable development
objectives and help to sustain the agricultural enterprise, and are
consistent in their scale with their rural location. This applies
equally to farm diversification schemes around the fringes of
urban areas; and
(iii)
where relevant, give favourable consideration to proposals for
diversification in Green Belts where the development preserves
the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the
purposes of including land within it. (Where farm diversification
proposals in the Green Belt would result in inappropriate
development in terms of PPG2, any wider benefits of the
diversification may contribute to the 'very special circumstances'
required by PPG2 for a development to be granted planning
permission).
Paragraph 19 of PPS7 gives specific guidance on replacement of
buildings in the countryside.
The Government is also supportive of the replacement of suitably
located, existing buildings of permanent design and construction in the
countryside for economic development purposes. The replacement of
buildings should be favoured where this would result in a more
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 138 of 174
acceptable and sustainable development than might be achieved through
conversion, for example, where the replacement building would bring
about an environmental improvement in terms of the impact of the
development on its surroundings and the landscape. Local planning
authorities should set out in their LDDs the criteria they will apply to
the replacement of countryside buildings. These should take account of
the considerations set out in paragraph 17 that apply to the conversion
and reuse for economic purposes of existing buildings in the
countryside. Authorities should also set out the circumstances where
replacement would not be acceptable and clarify the permissible scale
of replacement buildings.
Paragraph 34 of PPS7 outlines detail on tourism and leisure.
Regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should
recognise through RSS and LDDs that tourism and leisure activities are
vital to many rural economies. As well as sustaining many rural
businesses, these industries are a significant source of employment and
help to support the prosperity of country towns and villages, and sustain
historic country houses, local heritage and culture. RSS and LDDs
should:
(i)
support, through planning policies, sustainable rural tourism and
leisure developments that benefit rural businesses, communities
and visitors and which utilise and enrich, but do not harm, the
character of the countryside, its towns, villages, buildings and
other features;
(ii)
recognise that in areas statutorily designated for their landscape,
nature conservation or historic qualities, there will be scope for
tourist and leisure related developments, subject to appropriate
control over their number, form and location to ensure the
particular qualities or features that justified the designation are
conserved; and
(iii)
ensure that any plan proposals for large-scale tourism and
leisure developments in rural areas have been subject to close
assessment to weigh-up their advantages and disadvantages to
the locality in terms of sustainable development objectives. In
particular, the policy in PPG13 should be followed in such cases
where high volumes of traffic may be generated.
Equine related activities are also covered in paragraph 32.
Horse riding and other equestrian activities are popular forms of
recreation in the countryside that can fit in well with farming activities
and help to diversify rural economies. In some parts of the country,
horse training and breeding businesses play an important economic role.
Local planning authorities should set out in LDDs their policies for
supporting equine enterprises that maintain environmental quality and
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 139 of 174
countryside character. These policies should provide for a range of
suitably located recreational and leisure facilities and, where
appropriate, for the needs of training and breeding businesses. They
should also facilitate the re-use of farm buildings for small-scale horse
enterprises that provide a useful form of farm diversification.
7.1.2 PPG 13
Transport – gives detailed policy on transport, the objectives of this
guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national,
regional, strategic and local level.
Specific guidance on transport in rural areas is included at paragraph 40
– 44. Paragraph 43 is of particular importance to the key issues
considered by this report and is detailed below.
In order to reduce the need for long-distance out-commuting to jobs in
urban areas, it is important to promote adequate employment
opportunities in rural areas. Diversification of agricultural businesses is
increasingly likely to lead to proposals for conversion or re-use of
existing farm buildings for other business purposes, possibly in remote
locations. PPS7 indicates that for development related to agriculture
and for farm diversification, appropriate new buildings may also be
acceptable. In plan policies and development control decisions, local
authorities should encourage farm diversification proposals particularly,
but not exclusively, where this enables access by public transport,
walking and cycling. They should be realistic about the availability, or
likely availability, of alternatives to access by car. Similarly, they
should not reject proposals where small-scale business development or
its expansion would give rise to only modest additional daily vehicle
movements, in comparison to other uses that are permitted on the site,
and the impact on minor roads would not be significant.
7.1.3 PPG3
Provides policy guidance on housing – Policies 69 and 70 were
considered to be specifically relevant to this study.
In terms of overall housing provision, only a limited amount of housing
can be expected to be accommodated in expanded villages. Whilst
occasionally a village could be the basis for a new settlement where, for
example, the development accords with the policy of developing around
major nodes in transport corridors, most proposals for additional
housing will involve infill development or peripheral expansion.
Villages will only be suitable locations for accommodating significant
additional housing where:
•
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
It can be demonstrated that additional housing will support local
services, such as schools or shops, which could become unviable
Page 140 of 174
without some modest growth. This may particularly be the case
where the village has been identified as a local service centre in the
development plan;
•
Additional houses are needed to meet local needs, such as
affordable housing, which will help secure a mixed and balanced
community (see Annex B); and
•
The development can be designed sympathetically and laid out in
keeping with the character of the village using such techniques as
village design statements.
7.1.4 PPS 6
This statement whilst not applicable to rural development was produced
to protect and develop town centres which can on occasions conflict
with positive rural policies.
7.2
Other Guidance/Influences to Future Policy
Rural planning has achieved greater provision over the past two to three
years due to a number of economic and political factors including
reducing agricultural incomes, increasing farm diversification and the
increasing attraction of both living and working in the countryside.
PPS7 contains up to date government advice as outlined in the previous
section. However, there are a number of other reports and studies
which can provide assistance when looking at formulating local policy.
The following is by no means an exhaustive list but does encompass
many of the issues previously identified.
7.2.1
Rural Delivery Pathfinders - DEFRA
In March 2005 the government produced a prospectus for these
covering eight areas of the country following the launch in October
2004.
The aim of pathfinders is to ‘pilot’ processes which will potentially be
useful nationwide.
The aims of pathfinders are to experiment with and test:
•
ways of achieving more joined-up delivery of services in rural areas,
addressing economic, social and environmental issues through a
partnership approach;
•
where practicable, innovation in rural development and delivery of
services in rural areas, building as appropriate on existing best
practice; and
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 141 of 174
•
7.2.2
better prioritisation of existing resources, in line with local
priorities, towards areas, communities and people with the greatest
needs.
Regional Rural Delivery Framework for the East of England
The draft was produced in December 2004 with a second iteration to be
produced in 2005.
Paragraph 8.11 outlines the challenges facing rural areas in the East of
England. These are:
7.2.3
•
support entrepreneurship and sustainable rural business growth;
•
ensure that the least well performing rural areas in the region are
addressed in terms of increasing productivity;
•
create and regenerate thriving communities in which there are local
employment opportunities for good quality jobs, a supply of
affordable housing for local people and access to services including
health, education, skills, transport, business support and ICT;
•
enable a productive and sustainable food and farming industry to
flourish, mitigating the impacts and optimising the opportunities of
CAP reform whilst conserving and enhancing the potential of the
natural environment and heritage.
East of England Delivery Plans for Sustaining Farming and Food
The government sustainable farming and food strategy (SFFS) was
published in December 2002. The government office for the East of
England have developed their own plan with action areas and projects.
These include the efficient use of water, marketing of local food and
development of food trails.
7.2.4
PPG 7 Implemented in Relation to the Diversification of Farm
Businesses – ODPM
The Study looked at some of the key issues from PPG 7 and how they
were being implemented by various local authorities.
24 Local Plans were specifically examined with a number not including
policy on farm diversification. The documents contain what can be
described as a best practice, approaches to policy formulation.
The study also looked at reuse of buildings and how Local Authority’s
deal with economic and residential re-uses.
In a survey of planning officers a number saw their plans as being more
restrictive than PPG 7
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 142 of 174
7.2.5 The Federation of Small Businesses East of England Area Policy Unit
The section on Rural Issues calls for the following:
For many who live or work in rural areas existing planning legislation is
perceived to be designed to meet the needs of urban communities and
then applied to rural ones, irrespective of whether or not it is
appropriate.
Often applicants find the process difficult and advice hard to obtain,
especially where the planning office is based miles away from where
they live. With many more businesses now having access to the
internet such advice should be available in an easily understood format
on council websites, or else in booklet form.
We believe that such problems could be alleviated by planning officers
having surgeries where business owners and managers could meet them
to discuss planning issues affecting them.
The lack of consistency in policies is a major issue and often influenced
by national guidelines or regulations rather than the need for local
considerations. The tendency to produce one size fits all regulations at
a national level rarely address local differences and needs and we
believe that a more localised approach is the best one.
Despite encouragements from central government to encourage
enterprise and diversification in rural areas members have reported
difficulties in obtaining planning consent for the conversion of
redundant farm buildings with highways issues often overriding
economic ones. We would like to see such issues highlighted and
discussed before planning applications are submitted, and often refused.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
ƒ
Better provision of advice on planning issues for small
businesses, either in booklet form or on local authority websites.
ƒ
Greater access for small business owners to meet planning
officers and training for members of planning committees to
enable them to better understand the needs of small businesses.
ƒ
Greater consistency in planning policies with increased
emphasis on a more localised rather than a one size fits all
national approach.
ƒ
A presumption in favour of conversion to alternative use applied
to all redundant farm buildings.
ƒ
Business rate relief to be offered to all eligible businesses in all
rural districts.
Page 143 of 174
7.2.6
The Characteristics of Businesses Using Rural Buildings - RICS
Research February 2005
The document provides useful background to government policy on the
change of use of buildings. The report uses primary research of
businesses using rural buildings some of the main findings were:
ƒ
Almost all the businesses considered themselves successful.
ƒ
Over one third said they intended to expand on their current site.
ƒ
The majority of the businesses were involved in some sort of
service provision.
ƒ
A high proportion were new start ups (41%).
ƒ
68.5% were local businesses with no other site.
ƒ
HGV use was rare with 68% stating no HGV deliveries.
ƒ
The main travel distances were 8 miles for employers and 11
miles for employees.
ƒ
A significant proportion of workers commute from urban areas
to converted buildings.
ƒ
Very little use of public transport areas found.
In conclusion the study found that the re-use of rural buildings was a
very dynamic force in the rural economy although it was dependant
upon the private car.
The study recognises that its findings were too late to have an influence
on government policy in PPS7.
7.2.7
Consultation Draft – Strategy for the Horse Industry in England and
Wales, British Horse Industry Federation February 2005
The government has recognised the importance horses now play in the
rural economy hence their inclusion in PPS7. The strategic aims and
objectives of this strategy are all about raising skills and provision and
facilities which will have planning implications.
7.2.8
Norfolk County Council Local Policies and Standards for Highways
Development Control in Norfolk. Norfolk County Council December
2004
The role of highways in rural developments are significant, especially
when many proposals are not served by ideal roads in policy terms.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 144 of 174
Ensuring highway safety in line with Highways Policies whilst ensuring
rural businesses can thrive is a key challenge in any local policy
formulation.
7.2.9
The Price and Affordability of Dwellings with Occupancy Conditions.
Acorus May 2004.
Acorus have produced two of the above reports, the last in Mid 2004.
By analysing a number of sales of agriculturally tied property the aim
was to identify what the market was for agricultural dwellings with
agricultural occupancy conditions. This is important where a Local
Authority is seeking to establish whether there is a need for an
agricultural dwelling based on marketing evidence. The study showed
that agricultural dwellings sold for between 5% and 28% of the value if
a tie wasn’t present. This would back up a view that when a house is
marketed above their levels and doesn’t sell, it is the local market not
the price which prevented a sale.
The study also looked at affordability. There was no noticeable pattern
as to what type of house was in demand nor did cheaper houses have a
higher demand. This reflected the varying degrees of wealth within
agriculture that was also identified in the study.
7.2.10 National Farmers Retail and Market Association
This organization supports and promoted farm shops and markets
nationwide. They currently have a campaign titled “21 reasons to be
excited about local food”
7.2.11 Research by N.C.C – Through re-use of redundant farm buildings.
North Norfolk Country Council currently operates an advice and grant
scheme on the re-use of rural buildings. The results of their initial
research were looked at related to this project.
7.2.12 North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP)
North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP) brings together the
Parish and Town Councils, the District and County Council, the police,
the health service, businesses, community and voluntary groups to work
together to produce a concerted and co-ordinated approach to the
delivery of services in the communities of North Norfolk
(www.northnorfolk.org/nncp/default.htm ).
The partnership aims to promote the community, economic and
environmental; sustainability of the District, in particular by:
•
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Ensuring decent housing for all residents
Page 145 of 174
•
Developing the local economy to provide better job, career, and
training opportunities for local residents and those who want to
come and live in North Norfolk.
•
Maintaining the high quality of life and attractive natural
environment that exists now and makes North Norfolk unique.
(www.northnorfolk.org/nncp/default.htm).
Future Community Aspirations
Research carried out in 2002/03 identified eight key areas as themes for
action. They were:
•
Housing
•
Transport
•
Community safety
•
Economy
•
Heath and Social care
•
Environment and Outdoor Recreation
•
Leisure and culture
•
Learning and skills
7.2.13 Farmer’s voice survey and Farmer’s attitudes survey (ADAS)
The findings from the latest ADAS Farmer’s Voice Survey show that
nearly a quarter of all farmers in England and Wales are expecting their
farming practices to change. A similar number (20%) either have no
idea what that change will need to be, or think that they will have to
give up farming completely as uncertainty and pessimism about CAP
reform pervades many sections of the farming industry.
The results from the survey also showed a complete lack of engagement
in the CAP reform process by the farming industry, with 25%
describing themselves as not concerned. 46% of the farmers questioned
believed that the impact of CAP reforms in their regions will be
negative.
The findings of the Farmers Voice survey pointed to the fact that
farmers do not fully understand the implications of CAP reform. The
survey also revealed that farmers planned to reduce the intensity of how
they farm. Those responding predicted an average decline in winter
cereal area of 4% while a decrease of 12% in suckler cow numbers was
envisaged (ADAS News Release: Farmers Concerned over CAP
Reform).
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 146 of 174
SECTION 8
The potential implications of
land use planning policies on
agricultural trends
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 147 of 174
8.1
The potential implications of land use planning policies on agricultural trends.
The key trends for the rural economy and their implications have been
identified within Section 1 and summarised in paragraph 9 of Section 1.
They are based on two main shifts in agriculture, namely rationalisation and
broadening operations to add value to primary produce.
Land use planning policies are likely to have an impact on these trends:a)
b)
The rationalisation of the agricultural industry in North Norfolk is likely
to create the following land use issues:•
A requirement for larger more centralised purpose built
agricultural buildings to become more sustainable competitive
and adapt to new and changing markets.
•
A surplus of outdated buildings both traditional and modern
available for re-use subject to planning permission.
•
A further reduction in labour employed full time in agriculture,
which will in turn lead to houses with agricultural occupancy
conditions no longer required for agricultural labourers, on some
farms.
•
An increase in the employment of seasonal workers in areas
associated with high labour cropping i.e. vegetables, fruit etc.
•
An increase in grassland but reduction in agriculture livestock.
•
IPPC Regulations will lead to loss of pig and poultry units but
others will need to improve facilities, expand or relocate.
Businesses are being encouraged through government initiatives to add
value to their produce which will create the following land use issues.
There is likely to be an increased requirement for smaller high labour
specialist enterprises producing high quality products for niche markets
e.g. organic. These may require on site supervision and specialist
buildings which would require planning permission.
Products could be marketed through farm shops and farmers markets on
farms.
Products could be processed and packaged on farm e.g. organic milk
processing or biofuels prior to being directly distributed to the customer
where appropriate.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 148 of 174
c)
Diversification
Diversification of the whole rural economy is already taking place.
This trend continues in North Norfolk through a variety of initiatives.
These diversified enterprises utilise redundant land, buildings and rural
labour force in addition to stimulating the rural economy as a whole.
The continued development of the rural economy in the UK is likely to
follow the trends of rationalisation of agricultural production, adding
value to produce and diversification. Due to economics, market
demand and government initiatives, land use planning polices will have
an impact on the direction of these trends and should consider the
maintenance and management of the countryside, in addition to the
rural economy as a whole.
Production will be increasingly driven by economic viability so
economies of scale and efficiency of capital investment will be crucial
to land remaining in production.
Positive policies on agricultural buildings should enable the continued
rationalisation of agricultural businesses enabling land to remain in
production.
These policies would need to consider size and design, level of impact
on the rural landscape, nuisance, traffic and legislative requirements.
If there is no positive policy on the development of agricultural
buildings, more land and buildings could come out of production which
could have negative landscape impacts in addition to further rural
unemployment. Larger farming businesses and associated agricultural
industries could consider relocation out of North Norfolk.
Continued rationalisation will inevitably lower demand for agricultural
dwellings. Planning policies could enable these conditions to be altered
to provide local or low costs housing. This would need to be triggered
by an application from the owner of the property. Research showed this
would be unlikely as a large number of these properties were owner
occupied which would force them to vacate their homes if they were no
longer employed in agriculture or took alternative part time work.
In addition these houses by their very nature are likely to be isolated
with no shops or public transport which is essential for low cost
housing.
Any policy on removal of occupancy conditions should be specific in
terms of exact requirements for removal. It should consider changes in
markets and requirements for agricultural dwellings on the holding and
in the locality. This should prevent abuse of the planning system and
retain agricultural housing where it is required.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 149 of 174
If policies allowed amendments to other relevant occupations e.g.
equine it could help to facilitate an efficient diversification of the rural
economy reducing the need to build more new houses in the
countryside.
Adding value and concentration of niche products together with new
enterprises in the countryside e.g. equestrian may lead to a requirement
of new dwellings in the countryside.
Policies should enable dwellings to be built in countryside locations
where essential.
These dwellings can enable rural businesses to be profitable and well
managed which can have a positive impact on the rural landscape and
economy in terms of employment. If policies prevented development
of these dwellings the types of rural business could be limited which
could have an effect on the diversity and character of the rural
landscape.
Policies should however ensure the dwellings are essential and that the
associated business is likely to be financially sustainable in the future.
This should prevent abuse of the concession that the planning system
makes for such dwellings.
Rationalisation together with on farm processing and packaging has led
to the use of seasonal workers in some areas. These workers require
accommodation which is currently being provided under permitted
development rights through mobile homes. This can create landscape
problems and a poor standard of housing. A planning policy allowing
conversion of existing buildings to seasonal workers’ hostels could
mitigate the impact of housing seasonal workers in rural areas.
This study shows that the trends in agriculture are likely to continue to
create redundant buildings in rural areas.
The re-use of these buildings could help to stimulate the rural economy
and avoid dereliction and adverse impacts on the landscape. However,
the re-use of these buildings will be dependant on the economic
viability of potential uses. If no economically viable use can be found,
the buildings will fall into disrepair and dereliction before being lost as
an asset to the rural built environment.
Planning policies could encourage a diverse range of business uses
including mixed uses where appropriate. There will be some buildings
that are unsuitable for business (including tourism use) due to their
scale, design or location. If planning policies do not consider
residential use in these situations the buildings are likely to become
derelict creating an adverse impact on the character of the landscape.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 150 of 174
Farm diversification is likely to become more important to the viability
of the rural economy.
Positive policies on diversification will encourage this. With the
change in agriculture it is likely that smaller farming businesses will no
longer be involved in agriculture and diversification of the wider rural
economy and not just on working farms will be required e.g.
diversification of a redundant specialist pig breeding unit to light
industrial units.
If policies restrict diversification to working farms the previous
example may not be considered to be within policy.
Diversification policies should consider landscape implications, traffic
generation, and impact on neighbours and should be planned on a sound
financial basis.
This will prevent damage to the character of the landscape, road
network problems and nuisance. A business plan should show the level
of employment and economic value to the area associated with the
development. It would also explain environmental land management
issues for example if the diversification included grazing livestock for a
farm park or livery yard, as these are often site specific.
Keeping horses is a growing trend in the UK and in North Norfolk, it
can encourage tourism, provide employment, utilise existing buildings
and land that could otherwise go out of production. With the reduction
in livestock, horses can be used as an alternative when keeping
grassland in well managed production.
Planning policies should support equestrian development that maintains
environmental quality and landscape character. Floodlights, outside
storage of hay and straw bedding and show jumps could have adverse
impacts on the landscape.
Policies should consider the impact of the proposal with regard to
horses requiring exercise off the site (not always required). If policies
do not consider this issue horses on busy roads could cause accidents.
In addition policies that consider nature conservation and landscape
implications could prevent over grazing through allowing too many
stables for the amount of grass available etc.
Diversification can often utilise existing buildings but occasionally new
build is more appropriate e.g. environmental requirements of food
processing plants. Replacement of redundant buildings could be an
alternative to new build in this situation. Policies could provide for this
type of development but would need to consider the size and scale of
replacement buildings, the importance of the existing buildings and the
effect on the existing surroundings. If these issues are not considered
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 151 of 174
inappropriate developments could damage the existing build and natural
environment.
These recommendations have been based on a detailed rural economy
study. Policy decisions in these areas must be linked with the overall
strategy of the district.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 152 of 174
SECTION 9
Recommendation for North
Norfolk’s Future Policy
Direction
Introduction
Agricultural Buildings
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy
Conditions
Permanent Dwellings
Temporary Dwellings
Hostels for Seasonal Workers
Occupancy Condition Removal
Amendments/Alterations of Conditions
Conversion of Rural Buildings
Low Cost Housing
Land Use in ANOB and Agricultural
Land
Quality
Farm Diversification
Replacement Building
Recreation and Tourism
Highways
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 153 of 174
INTRODUCTION
Based on the primary research and desk research of published data including National
Polity it is considered North Norfolk District Council should formulate policies that
strike the correct balance between protecting the countryside and in particular the
ANOB but also recognising the significant changes in agriculture both historically and
in the future.
The following recommendations have been based on a detailed rural economy study.
Policy decisions in these areas must be linked with the overall strategy of the district,
for example; housing strategy, tourism, transport, industrial development/employment.
9.1
Agricultural Buildings
Specific policy on planning applications for agricultural buildings is required
with particular reference to intensive livestock and relevance of new
regulations e.g. IPPS (Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Regulations) is
required.
Any such policy should take account of the advice in paragraph 16 of PPS 7.
The current policy on prior approval should remain but a new policy is required
for agricultural development to cover crop and general stores, livestock
buildings and horticultural development.
In this respect a policy similar to East Yorkshire 1997 adopted policy would be
suitable i.e.
“Permission will be granted for agricultural, horticultural or forestry related
development provided that:(a)
the proposal is related to and located on an existing unit, and is
reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture,
horticulture or forestry within that unit;
(b)
it would not significantly detract from the character of the rural
landscape;
(c)
the location, scale, design, colour and materials are appropriate
to the character and appearance of the surrounding area;
(d)
the proposal would not give rise to significant noise and
disturbance to the occupiers of nearby residential properties or
otherwise adversely affect residential amenities, for example by
reason of dust, odour or effluent;
(e)
the amount of traffic likely to be generated would not prejudice
highway safety or cause significant harm to the environmental
character of country roads, and
(f)
satisfactory vehicular access can be achieved”.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 154 of 174
A footnote to the effect that proposals required to meet the requirement of new
legislation, i.e. IPPC would be viewed favourably. In assessing their
application account will be taken of the improvement on the existing unit.
A key issue is the more restrictive treatment of agricultural buildings in the
ANOB, which is generally accepted to be the right approach. Greater
difficulties arise with the area of High Landscape value which is seen to be too
restrictive given it covers a large area of the district.
9.2
Agricultural Dwellings and Occupancy Conditions
It is recommended that 2 policies for new dwellings are appropriate. One for
permanent agricultural dwellings and one for temporary, reflecting the differing
approaches in annex A of PPS 7. The policies also need to reflect other
occupational dwellings.
1)
Permanent Dwellings
A policy similar to the following could be appropriate.
New permanent dwellings in the countryside for agriculture, forestry or
other occupational requirements will only be permitted where:
i)
There is a clear functional requirement for a person to be
resident on site;
ii)
The need is full-time;
iii)
The unit is established, profitable and economically viable;
iv)
There are no other dwellings on the holding or locally which
would fulfil the need.
A footnote to the effect that when a need has been identified an
agricultural dwelling should be of a size the unit can sustain. Some
Local Authority’s are given guidance on size although this is subject to
debate and variation and should not be a fixed maximum. A guide of
180m² - 200m² maybe appropriate.
2)
Temporary Dwellings
A policy along the following is required
A temporary dwelling for agriculture, forestry or other occupational
purposes will only be permitted where:
i)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Significant evidence is provided to show the business has been
planned on a sound financial basis;
Page 155 of 174
3.
ii)
There will be a functional requirement to live on site;
iii)
There are no other dwellings on the holding or locally which
would fulfil the need;
iv)
There is a realistic prospect that the business will meet the
requirement of policy X (permanent dwellings)
Hostels for Seasonal Workers
An issue which arose during consultations was the housing of seasonal
workers. In some areas of the country large grouping of mobile homes
which can be exempt from planning permission have created landscape
and other concerns.
North Norfolk should consider introducing a policy which may support
conversion of buildings for the provision of hostels when they are
relevant to the units they wish to serve.
4.
Occupancy Condition Removal
The first paragraph of the existing policy is entirely suitable but criteria
a) and b) are not clear and references to parishes are too prescriptive
and gives rise to differing geographical interpretation.
An alternative maybe;
5.
a)
the applicant has shown that the property has been marketed
with sufficient publicity to the agricultural community, over a
minimum of 6 months;
b)
The property has been available at a price reflecting the
condition which would normally be a 30% reduction on its open
market value.
Amendments/Alterations of Conditions
A further consideration is amendment of the conditions to include other
occupational businesses (e.g. equine), local need housing and holiday
use. In these cases it should not be necessary to undertake any
marketing. Such applications should be judged favourably.
The study looked at whether agricultural dwellings could be used for
low cost housing and investigating this could be made a requirement of
any removal. However it is considered the range of housing types and
issues make this inappropriate.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 156 of 174
9.3
Conversion of Rural Buildings
The existing policy, number 29, needs little change other than related to
residential use and to reflect the latest advice in PPS 7 to encourage buildings
to be converted to the most appropriate use.
The recommendation is to remove the first section “in the case of a conversion
to residential use (excluding holiday accommodation), the building is adjacent
to the boundary of a Growth Town, Small Town, Large Village or Selected
Small Village”, and introduce a policy on residential along the following lines:Conversion to residential use will only be permitted where:
i)
The residential element is part of a mixed scheme including business reuse or
ii)
The building is worthy of preservation and residential use is the only
way this can be achieved
iii)
The conversion scheme can be incorporated without alteration to the
fabric and retains the barns appearance.
This will encourage the development of mixed schemes including in or on the
edge and within villages to meet sustainability objectives and will ensure
important buildings wherever they are located have a chance of preservation.
9.4
Low Cost Housing
This was not specifically part of the remit although it did arise in relation to
removal of agricultural occupancy conditions. It is not considered that a
restrictive policy requiring such a use is achievable or appropriate in North
Norfolk although it should be an option (see 7.2).
9.5
Land Use in ANOB and Agricultural Land Quality
Protecting high quality agricultural land is no longer the cornerstone of
Government advice and should be viewed alongside other sustainability
considerations (paragraph 28 PPS 7 refers). Given the importance of
agriculture in the North Norfolk district retention of a policy maybe
appropriate.
An alternative wording to policy 22 should reflect that other sustainable issues
maybe more important and developers should not make decisions based too
heavily on land quality considerations.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 157 of 174
9.6
Farm Diversification
Generally
A clear policy is essential to recognise the Government policy in PPS 7.
Whilst other policies in the LDF will be important diversification should have
its own policy and criteria. Suggested wording would be as follows:“Farm diversification proposals will be allowed where:1)
the proposal does not unacceptably impact upon the amenities of
residents;
2)
the proposed access and level of traffic generated by the proposal is
within the capacity of existing approach roads, when compared with the
permitted agricultural use and would not be detrimental to the amenity
of the locality or prejudice highway safety;
3)
the proposal does not result in demonstrable harm to the landscape and
nature conservation; and
4)
building requirements are met through the conversion of suitable
existing buildings or replacement buildings. New buildings will only
be approved where the activity proposed cannot be met through the
conversion of an existing building and where the new structure does not
result in excessive expansion of built development into the countryside.
5)
The proposal should be planned on a sound financial basis.
Farm Shops
A policy on farm shops should be retained but needs flexibility in terms of
‘imported’ goods to ensure farm shops can operate all year round especially
when local produce might not be available and labour needs to be retained.
The existing policy may also have implications regarding European Union
Legislation and use of the word ‘locally’.
Horses
North Norfolk Policy is written in a restrictive manner.
A policy similar in nature to the existing policy is appropriate, although given
the importance of horses to the rural economy the policy should be more
positive and state:
“development proposals involving horses will be permitted subject to:
(a)
would have no detrimental effect upon the appearance and character of
the surrounding landscape;
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 158 of 174
(b)
would have no detrimental effect upon areas of nature conservation
interest;
(c)
would have no significant detrimental effect on the residential amenities
of nearby occupiers;
(d)
would not impair highways safety; and
(e)
are well sited in relation to bridle-ways, roads used as public paths and
unclassified metalled roads if required or unless on farm riding is
provided.”
The current local plan in its definition reference paragraph 12.63 outlines the
unsightly nature of many equine facilities. Any new LDF should explain that
these facilities require planning permission as only grazing is exempt from
specific permission. A supplementary document maybe appropriate.
9.7
Replacement Building
Given previous diversification of the rural economy and the fact that some rural
buildings may not necessarily be of the best design or layout, Government
policy recognizes that replacement maybe appropriate. North Norfolk Should
have a policy to cover such development along the following lines:
The replacement of buildings in the countryside outside the development
boundary will be allowed subject to the following:-
9.8
1)
The building is not of historical or architectural importance;
2)
The building to be replaced is of permanent construction and
structurally sound;
3)
The replacement building is of a similar size and scale as the building to
be replaced.
4)
The new building will provide environmental improvement compared
to the old building;
5)
There will be no detrimental effect on surrounding buildings especially
those of historic or architectural importance.
Recreation and Tourism
Again this was not a specific area subject to the study on which specific
recommendations are required but does have significant Rural Economy
implications, particularly related to change of use of buildings and farm
diversification.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 159 of 174
The various surveys and workshops identified a possible over supply of holiday
accommodation although that is an economic matter and should not necessarily
be restricted within planning policy.
9.9
Highways
Highways is a common theme which has an effect on all levels of development.
There is a perception that in some cases highways advice is over negative and
does not recognise the level of traffic that would arise from the permitted
agricultural use.
Advice also needs to be tempered against the general standard of roads in North
Norfolk.
Whilst highways policy is a county matter and cannot be specifically addressed
in the new LDF, it is an area North Norfolk need to be aware of and if
necessary encourage a more flexible approach.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 160 of 174
SECTION 10
Appendices
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 161 of 174
Table 1: DEFRA June Census Data for North Norfolk 1990 and 2004
1990
Category (Landuse/Crops)
Farm type - Cereals
Farm type - General Cropping
Farm type - Horticulture
Farm type - Pigs & Poultry
Farm type - Dairy
Farm type - Cattle and Sheep
Farm type - Mixed
Farm type - Other
Size - less than 5 ha
Size - 5 to <20 ha
Size - 20 to < 50 ha
Size - 50 to <100 ha
Size - 100 ha or greater
Total area
Rented
Owned
Crops and fallow [see note *]
Temporary grass
Permanent grass
Rough grazing
Woodland
Setaside
All other land
Wheat
Winter barley
Spring barley
Oats
Other cereals
Total cereals [see note *]
Potatoes
Sugar beet
Horticulture [see note *]
Field beans
Peas (harvest dry)
Oilseed rape
Linseed
Turnips etc
Other crop stock
Maize
Other arable
Bare fallow
Peas and beans
All other veg and salad
Total veg in open [see note *]
Area under glass or plastic
Top fruit (Orchards)
Small fruit
Total fruit [see note *]
Hardy nursery
Bulbs flowers
Dairy
Beef
Breeding herd (to replace)
Other cattle over 1 yr
Cattle under 1 yr
Total cattle [see note *]
Breeding pigs
Other pigs
Total pigs [see note *]
Breeding ewes
Other sheep
Lambs under 1yr
Total sheep [see note *]
Goats
2004
No. of
No. of
Holdings Holdings
98
90
463
356
33
39
60
85
10
8
54
138
55
56
69
339
187
515
137
158
160
97
134
119
224
224
842
965
392
336
660
796
681
510
185
134
499
533
194
141
263
271
14
392
502
339
415
285
471
243
446
282
36
12
15
12
609
411
292
201
505
381
237
130
70
47
54
31
39
##
28
9
45
16
117
50
22
36
##
47
##
79
153
52
78
49
203
77
19
17
22
33
16
45
28
11
30
11
##
48
23
139
105
134
110
182
138
203
130
266
183
71
50
102
100
102
104
104
101
73
94
99
86
113
140
16
55
%
Change
-8%
-23%
18%
42%
-20%
156%
2%
391%
175%
15%
-39%
-11%
0%
15%
-14%
21%
-25%
-28%
7%
-27%
3%
2700%
-32%
-31%
-48%
-37%
-67%
-20%
-33%
-31%
-25%
-45%
-33%
-43%
-68%
-64%
-57%
64%
-66%
-37%
-62%
29%
-52%
-38%
173%
-52%
-24%
-18%
-24%
-36%
-31%
-30%
-2%
2%
-3%
29%
-13%
24%
244%
1990
2004
Ha or
Number
Ha or
Number
77,672
32,753
44,918
63,063
1,651
6,647
1,662
2,320
427
1,901
16,141
14,139
8,499
223
136
39,139
3,794
12,258
4,956
736
702
##
370
142
323
164
##
##
3,589
858
4,448
74,778
23,000
53,642
54,865
1,240
8,619
2,229
2,816
4,372
1,621
14,098
8,725
10,103
157
194
33,951
4,433
10,025
1,948
872
572
1,769
165
40
142
531
229
451
1,215
768
1,728
2
24
119
110
25
87
1,625
3,238
1,999
3,396
4,212
14,367
4,264
63,729
69,015
10,549
1,742
10,190
21,659
225
71
309
380
15
##
3,927
3,560
2,751
3,827
8,052
22,117
7,907
66,208
74,115
13,558
774
12,858
27,190
135
%
Change
-4%
-30%
19%
-13%
-25%
30%
34%
21%
924%
-15%
-13%
-38%
19%
-30%
43%
-13%
17%
-18%
-61%
18%
-19%
-55%
-72%
-56%
224%
-66%
-11%
-61%
-66%
-61%
-71%
64%
-59%
-9%
-27%
-11%
-48%
-35%
-46%
-4%
-7%
-22%
125%
-21%
-20%
67%
* Note: there are no results at level 5 (ward) for items that are sub-totals of other items, these are only available at higher levels.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 162 of 174
Organic Statistics January 2005
Table 2:
Table 3:
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 163 of 174
Table 4:
(Source: Defra, Jan 2005 Organic Statistics England www.statistics.gov.uk)
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 164 of 174
Table 5: Diversified Enterprises (Farmer’s Voice Survey 2004)
Question 34: Which, if any, of the following types of diversified enterprises do you
currently operate?
Enterprises
Novel food crops
Novel livestock
Non-food crops
Agricultural services
Farm-based food processing
Farm-based food retailing
Farm-based accommodation
Equine
Other farm based leisure businesses
Farm based craft businesses
Leasing of buildings
Leasing of land
Off farm non agricultural businesses
Not stated
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Any Organic
%
5
4
4
8
7
22
15
6
3
12
17
27
31
Non Organic
%
1
5
10
2
6
6
10
4
1
15
11
16
49
Page 165 of 174
Table 6: Agricultural financial performance in 2002:
Agriculture’s
Agriculture
Gross
share of total
Intermediat
Total
’s share of
value
regional
Gross
e
income
total
added at
gross value
output (a) consumptio
from
regional
basket
added at
n
farming
employment
prices
basic
(c) (d)
prices(b)
£ million
£ million
£ million £ million
%
%
United
Kingdom
England
Wales
Scotland
Northern
Ireland
English
Regions
North East
North West
Yorkshire
and
Humberside
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East of
England
South East
and London
South West
15,519
8,381
7,137
2,418
0.8
1.9
11,453
1,012
1,923
6,045
631
1,032
5,408
381
891
1,812
116
365
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.5
4.5
2.8
1,131
674
457
126
2.9
7.2
415
1,072
222
600
193
472
56
71
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.3
1,462
746
717
329
1.3
1.7
1,675
876
799
348
1.6
2.1
1,330
706
624
203
1.2
1.8
2,116
1,050
1,067
528
1.4
2.0
1,317
657
659
136
0.4
1.3
2,065
1,187
877
142
2.0
1.9
Imported livestock, including purchases of store cattle and sheep, are included as
negative output.
In order to estimate the total gross value added at basic prices for the entire
economy, the fourth quarter has been estimated suing the trend of the previous
three quarters. Data for 2002 is not available from the Office for National
Statistics (ONS) for individual countries so data for 2001 has been included for
illustrative purposes. Data given for the English regions relate to 2000 and
refers to the latest data available from the ONS; these figures relate to the
category “Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing.”
The total workforce in employment consists of employees in employment, the self
employed and people in work related government training schemes.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 166 of 174
The agriculture industry includes a high proportion of part-time workers. A
comparison on the basis of full-time equivalents would show lower
percentages.
(Source: Defra website, http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/)
Table 7: Changes in the near future (Farmer’s Voice Survey 2004)
How likely are you to do each of the following in the near future?
Yes/possibly
(%)
Any
Nonorganic
organic
Develop alliances with other
farmers
Develop alliances with
customers
Develop alliances with service
providers (e.g.
machinery/feed/seed supplier)
Market directly to consumers
(e/g farmer’s markets, farm
shop)
Forward sell, e.g. grow to
contract
Cease agricultural production
but maintain the land in good
agricultural condition
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Unlikely/no
(%)
Any
Nonorganic
organic
51
40
36
45
45
36
39
46
28
27
56
53
47
19
41
62
33
30
50
51
38
30
55
54
Page 167 of 174
SECTION 11
Bibliography
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 168 of 174
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BASC. 2005. BASC to help DEFRA correct shooting guidance on farm
payments. [On-line]. Available from:
www.basc.org.uk/content/basc_to_help_defra
BHS. 2005. East of England Regional Routes. [On-line]. Available from:
http://homepages.ehic.net/~phil.wadey/routes/
Biofuels. 1999. Biofuels for Sustainable Transport – the lack of UK
Government Policy. [On-line]. Available from: www.biofiuels.fsnet.co.uk
Business Link. 2005. Rural and Agricultural Advice. [On-line]. Available
from: www.businesslinknorfolk.co.uk/services/agricultural
British Sugar. 2003. Review of the European Sugar Sector – the Position of
the UK Beet Sugar Industry. [On-line]. Available from:
www.britishsugar.co.uk/bsweb/bsgroup/facts/fsheet5.htm.
Business Link. 2005. Regulation – agriculture and fishing. [On-line].
Available from: www.businesslink.gov.uk
CAAV. 2005. Environmental Stewardship Schemes: ELS, OELS and HLS.
CAAV MTR Conference. March 2005
Countryside Quality Counts. 2005. Character area profiles. [On-line].
Available from: www.countryside-quality-counts.org.uk/cap/east?CA078.htm
Defra. 2005. New Legislation on waste management: guidance on manure.
[On-line]. Available from: www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2005/waste0511.htm
Defra. 2005. Waste legislation and licensing. [On-line]. Available from:
www.defra.gov.iuk/environment/waste/management/manure/htm
Defra and National Statistics. 2004. Agricultural and Horticultural census: 3
June 2004 England. York: Defra.
Defra. No date. Rural White Paper: Our Countryside: The Future – A Fair
Deal for Rural England –Summary. [On-line]. Available from:
www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralwp/summary.htm.
Defra. 2005. Composting. [On-line]. Available from:
www.defra.gov.uk/rural/horses/topics/composting.htm
Defra, 2005. Waste legislation and licensing: Applying for a Waste
Management licence. [On-line]. Available from:
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/licence/index.htm
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 169 of 174
Defra. 2005. Landscape protection. Recreation and public access Countryside
and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW). [On-line]. Available from:
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countrysider/cl
EDP24. 2003. Norfolk Rural Business Advice Service. [On-line]. Available
from: www.edp24.co.uk/FarmersMarket/BusinessLink.asp
English Nature. 2002. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). [On-line].
Available from: www.english-nature.org.uk
Environment Agency. 2005. The Water Framework Directive: Position
Statement. [On-line]. Available from: www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Farmer’s Link. 2005. Linking lives and Livelihoods. [On-line]. Available
from: www.farmerslink.org.uk
Horse and Hound. 2005. Defra to impose muck heap fees. [On-line].
Available from: www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/63473.html
House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
2004-2004. Reform of the Sugar Regime Volume 1. London: The Stationary
Office Ltd.
Livestock Knowledge Transfer. No date. IPPC and the Poultry Industry.
ADAS.
NFU. 2005. Reform of European Union Sugar Regime. [On-line]. Available
from: www.nfu.org.uk/stellentdev/groups/public/documents/policypositions.
NFU. No Date. Review of the British Potato Council. [On-line]. Available
from:
www.nfu.org.uk/stellentdev/groups/public/documents/policypositions.
NFU. 2005. Agricultural Waste. [On-line]. Available from: www.nfu.org.uk
NFU. 2005. Farming in East Anglia. [On-line]. Available from:
www.nfu.org.uk/stellentdev./groups/public/documents/regiona_article/farmingi
neastanglia
Norfolk Coast Partnership. 2005. Summary of the Landscape Character
Areas of the Norfolk Coast AONB. [On-line]. Available from:
www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk
RICS. 2005. Implementation of the Single Payment Scheme in England.
Briefing for RICS members. London: RICS
Rural Business Unit, University of Cambridge and The Royal Agricultural
College. 2004. Economic, Social and Environmental Implications of EU Sugar
Regime Reform. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 170 of 174
Scottish Executive. 2005. Custodians of Change: Report of Agriculture and
Environment Working Group. [On-line]. Available from:
www.scotland.gov.uk/libraary5/agri/aewg-=4.asp
Sugar Traders. 2004. A study on UK sugar beet agriculture demonstrates that
EU sugar regime reform would have negative impacts on UK agriculture and
the environment. [On-line]. Available from: www.sugartraders.co.uk
The Telegraph. 2005. Horse owners cry foul over manure composting fees.
[On-line]. Available from www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/news/main
University of Cambridge. 2001. The Farm Business Survey in the Eastern
Counties. [On-line]. Available from:
www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/rbu/shortreport.htm
Adas Consulting Ltd. 2004. Farmer’s Voice 2004 Summary Report: Organic
Farming.
Wolverhampton. 2004.
British Horse Industry Confederation, Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, Department for Environment, Media, and Sport and
Welsh Assembly Government. 2005. Strategy for the Horse Industry in
England and Wales. Defra.
Centre for Rural Research, University of Exeter and Rural and Tourism
Group, University of Plymouth. 2003. Farm Diversification Activities:
Benchmarking Study 2002: Final Report. University of Exeter.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2005. Economic
Position of the Faming Industry.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2004. A Draft
Regional Rural Delivery Framework for the East of England.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Scottish Executive
for Environment and Rural Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (Northern Ireland) and Welsh Assembly Government: The
Department for Environment, Planning and Countryside. 2004. Agriculture
in the United Kingdom 2003. London: The Stationary Office
Defra. 2005 East of England Region- A Long Term Policy Perspective for
Sustainable Agriculture: Environmental Impacts – Final Report. [On-Line].
Available from:
http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/capmtrp/appendix4.pdf
Defra. 2005 Holdings and Areas/Numbers for
Landuse/Crops/Livestock/Labour – from the June 1990 Census. [On-line].
Available from:
http://farmstats.defra.gov.uk/cs/farmstats_data/DATA/nuts_data/nuts_query_re
sults [Accessed 17 May 2005].
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 171 of 174
Defra and National Statistics. July 2004. Organic Statistics England. A
National Statistics Publication.[On-line]. Available from www.defra.gov.uk
Defra. 2005. Diversification in Agriculture – January 2005 (Farm Business
Survey)
Defra. No date. ERDP –East of England Regional Chapter.[On-line].
Available from:
www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/eastchapter/east14/agriculture.htm
Defra. 2005. ERDP – East of England Chapter – Employment. [On-line].
Available from:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/eastchapter/east13/employment.htmb
Defra. 2005. ERDP- East of England Chapter – Rural Tourism and
Recreation. [On-line]. Available from:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/eastchapter/east14/tourism.htmb
Defra. 2005. The Rural Enterprise Scheme. [On-line]. Available
from:www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/res/default.htm
Department for Transport. 2005. Towards a UK Strategy for Biofuels –
Public Consultation. [On-line]. Available from:
www.deft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads.
Farm Web. 2005. Alternative Crops. [On-line]. Available from:www.landown.demon.co.uk/fwaltcrops.htm
Pharms Info. 2003. Organic Report. [On-line]. Available
from:www.pharmsinfo.com
Prag. P. 2002. Rural Diversification. 2md Ed. London: Estates Gazette.
North Norfolk District Council. 2003. Economic Development Strategy to
2007. A report by the Economic Development Unit of North Norfolk District
Council.
.
National Statistics. 2005. Employee Jobs by Industry: Agriculture. [On-line].
Available from: www.statistics.gov.uk [Accessed 17 May 2005].
Norfolk Coast Partnership. 2005. Old MacDonald had a farm. [On-line].
Available from: www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk/news/newsarticles
Slee, B.1989. Alternative Farm Enterprises. 2nd Ed. London: Farming Press.
Soil Association. 2002. Food and Farming Report 2002 Executive Summary.
[On-line]. Available from: www.soilassociation.org
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 172 of 174
Acorus Rural Property Services. 2005. Rural Diversification Project: Mid
Devon Farm Diversification Assessment.
A Draft Regional Rural Delivery Framework for the East of England December
2004.
Ashton Graham. 2005. Appointment of New Agriculture Lawyer. [On-line].
Available from: www.ashtongraham.co.uk.
Caradon District Council. 2005. Beacon Council. [On-line]. Available from:
www.caradon.gov.uk.
Countryside Agency. No date. The Countryside Agency’s Response to Draft
Planning Policy Statement.
Dorset County Council. 2005. Local Plans. [On-Line]. Available from:
www.dorsetforyou.com.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council. 2005. Supporting New Businesses. [Online]. Available from: www.eastriding.gov.uk
East of England Development Agency. No date. A Shared Vision: the
regional economic strategy for the East of England.
East of England Observatory.2005. Review of the Regional Economic
Strategy. [On-line]. Available from: www.eastofenglandobservatory.org.uk
East of England Regional Assembly. 2004. East of England Plan Draft
Revision to the RSS.
East of England Tourist Board. 2005. EETB – your partner in tourism.[Online]. Available from: www.eetb.org.uk
East of England Tourist Board. 2005. Overseas Marketing – Overview. [Online]. Available from: www.eetb.org.uk
Economic Development Strategy to 2007. A report by the Economic
Development Unit of North Norfolk District Council.
Idea Knowledge. 2005. Beacon Themes A-Z. [On-line]. Available from:
www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk
Lancashire Council. 2005. Beacon Status [On-line]. Available from:
www.lancashire.gov.uk
Larking Gowen. 2005. Services to Agriculture. [On-line]. Available from:
www.larking-gowen.co.uk
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 173 of 174
Lincolnshire County Council. 2005. Lincolnshire County Council – Making a
Difference. [On-line]. Available from: www.lincolnshire.gov.uk
Lovewell Blake. 2005. Listing of Partners. [On-line]. Available from:
www.lovewell-blake.co.uk
National Association of Farmers Markets. 2005. Visit the Markets. [Online]. Available from: www.farmersmarkets.net
Norfolk County Council. 2004. Local Policies and Standards for Highways
Development Control in Norfolk.
Norfolk County Council. 2005. Local Policies and standards for highway
development control. [On-Line]. Available from: www.norfolk.gov.uk
Norfolk County Council. 2005. Norfolk Structure Plan 1999 and Review to
2025. [On-line]. Available from: www.norfolk.gov.uk
North Norfolk District Council. 1998. North Norfolk Local Plan.
Norfolk Coast Partnership. 2005. Partnership Organisations of the Norfolk
Coast Partnership. [On-line]. Available from: www.norfolkcoastaonb.org.uk.
North Norfolk Community Partnership. 2005. Welcome to the North
Norfolk Community Partnership Website. [On-line]. Available from:
www.northnorfolk.org.
North Norfolk Community Partnership. 2004. Our Community Strategy
2004-2009.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 2005. Applying for the Beacon Council
Scheme. [On-line]. Available from: www.odpm.gov.uk.
Rural Introduction. 2005. County Councils. [On-line]. Available from:
www.poverty.org.uk/rural.
Richmondshire District Council. 2005. Richmondshire District Council – A
Beacon Council. [On-line]. Available from: www.richmondshire.gov.uk.
Tynedale Council. 2005. The Beacon Scheme. [On-line]. Available from:
www.tynedale.gov.uk.
Waverley Council. 2005. Beacon Status –a first for Waverley. [On-line].
Available from: www.waverley.gov.uk.
Yellow pages. 2005. Agricultural Search. [On-line]. Available from:
www.yell.com
JS/GC/N Norfolk/rpt
Page 174 of 174